French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Join Gab (@StFerdinandIII) Western Civilisation was and is superior to anything Islam has developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Raising the alarm about the fascism called Submission since 2000.  

Archive - March 2021

The Clock and the Camshaft, J. W. Farrell

And other Medieval Inventions we still can’t live without

Bookmark and Share



According to Protestant-Atheist-Muslim propaganda the world of the Medieval European Christian was so dark, one could see nothing.  It was a blinding, raging, never ending sea of black, no light, no reason, no understanding, no innovations, no initiatives, never mind science, mathematics, technology or even books.  Squatting, hairy, dirty, senseless, filthy, mired in abject ignorance, unable to speak properly, disavowing the greatness of pagan slave-based Rome or the slave-owning, largely illiterate Greek empires, unmindful of hygiene, nutrition, health, no encounters with a bath; the medieval Christian was a half-naked savage, less worthy than the human-sacrificing Mayans and Aztecs, probably on par with your average African Bushman, who at least has the redeeming quality of being good with a spear.  The era was parlous, full of squalor and stupid, good for nothing except as a bad memory of illiterate barbarism, Gothic in every way.


So runs the current propaganda in train since the 17th century (or 15th if we include the arrogant and quite talentless Petrarch), manufactured in the main by people who could not, and cannot do anything.  They did not, nor do they now, invent, create, build, fabricate, improve, or even deign to understand complexity.  The complicated nature of medieval life and its attendant progress, wealth, innovation, is like the created world, plain to see, if one has the eyes and open mind for it.  Without medieval Christendom there is no European world-mastery.  Culture is king, not geography, husbandry, seasonal changes, or luck.


Take the camshaft.  No camshaft no manufacturing.  You only find the invention of the camshaft in Medieval Europe as early as the 9th century.  As Farrell writes, ‘’The camshaft was the key to powering the mass production of cloth, iron, hemp, leather, and paper, all of which benefitted from the repeated force of heavy pounding….As Jeremy Naydler argues, the camshaft represented the first example of machine programming in human history.  By adjusting the cams on a shaft, the millwright could ‘program’ both in what order and at what speed the mill’s trip-hammers would operate….Paper was certainly the result of a fortuitous conjunction of cam and gearing.’


Nothing fortuitous about the interplay of gears and cams.  It was designed and modelled as such.  Tonnes of vellum and parchment gave way to mass produced paper starting in the 15th century.  But long before the 15th century the tools and institutional developments and related processes had been establish for modern science and math.  The Medieval invention of paper and book making simply hastened that on-going initiative.  ‘…a vast intellectual and legal revolution occurred in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the West, transforming medieval society so that it became a receptive ground for the rise and growth of modern science’.


Innovations in math and science were protected by the creation of Universities funded by the Church and cities through their merchant classes.  The Age of Discovery was one built on such progress including the perfection of the astrolabe and other technologies related to long-distance travel (ship building, the Viking longship, sail power, map making, logistics).  Farrell like most academics wrongly places the Astrolabe as a Muslim creation.  This is ahistorical.  The astrolabe was known to the ancient Romans and Byzantine Greek Christians and was adopted by Muslims through the Jihad and destruction of Christian Levantine and Byzantium territory.  There is no evidence that Muslims improved on the original design confirmed by the fact that Muslims were never to engage in an Age of oceanic Discovery.  The Vikings also invented an astrolabe based on lodestars no later than the 9th century, giving them the confidence to sail to North America.  Different types of astrolabes were common in Europe in the medieval, era some ‘cut down’ to provide portability.  They were widely used no later than the 10th century and abetted the early period of discovery from the savagery of Viking exploration to the first forays in the 15th century around Africa and in the wider Atlantic.


The compass surpassed and replaced the astrolabe no later than the late 13th or early 14th century, again made and developed in Christian Europe, perfected in Amalfi Italy.  This was a round container that protected a mounted magnetic pointer which could rotate around a compass card that featured eight designated directions.  With the compass, portable, easy to use, on board the astrolabe and fear of bad weather or overcast conditions, was greatly reduced.  Accuracy of distance navigation improved considerably.  Detailed charts were made based on the magnetic attraction of the north pole, providing common maps and routes.  Allied with improvements in European ship building the Age of Discovery became a reality. 


The camshaft and the compass are just two of many Medieval Christian innovations.  But you won’t hear much about them.  For those religious dedicated to opposing Europe’s Christian past, these and hundreds of other inventions are just ignored, given to the Muslims, Chinese or non-White Christians as their innovative product, or simply moved into the ‘early modern period’ as an example of the ‘rational, scientific, revolution’, created no doubt by smart, clever people like those ascribing 1000 years of variegated progress the appellation ‘dark’.


There is however, very little that is ‘light’ or clever which is based on dissimulation and ignorance.


Sura 23 and Muslim hate speech. Curious that the big brains don't view such text as 'hateful'

As long as the hate speech is anti-Christian (and by default anti-White), it is okay.

Bookmark and Share


023:117  And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allah, any other ilah (god), of whom he has no proof, then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely! Al-Kafirun (the disbelievers in Allah and in the Oneness of Allah, polytheists, pagans, idolaters, etc.) will not be successful.


The above Sura states that Christians will be subservient to Muslims or ‘unsuccessful’ against Muslims.  This anti-Christian animus fills the Koran, though the Vatican and the current ignorant Papacy and Curia ignore such facts. 


20% of the verses from Sura 2 (the longest to Sura 23 named the ‘Believers) is hate speech against Christians, non-Muslims, the Kufar, the Infidel, the ‘apes and pigs’ of Koranic lore.  For Western geniuses and social justice warriors, this violence means of course that Muhammadanism is peaceful.  The translations are to blame, or maybe the misinterpretations of the text.  Perhaps the context is missing they muse. 


There are at least 28 verses of violence in Sura 23 out of 118. Since the entire chapter is premised on why Moslems are superior and why they will rule and dominate the Unbelievers, one could make a good case that the entire 118 verses are in actual fact supremacist and intolerant. The more lurid 28 statements of violence against non-Moslems include the story of Noah and the great flood – Infidels and Criminals who don't follow the Allah cult will be drowned, or Christian ‘polytheists’ who will be killed by the Al Lah.



And when you have embarked on the ship, you and whoever is with you, then say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has saved us from the people who are Zalimun (i.e. oppressors, wrong-doers, polytheists, those who join others in worship with Allah, etc.).


Verily, in this [what We did as regards drowning of the people of Nuh (Noah)], there are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc. for men to understand), for sure We are ever putting (men) to the test.


Follow Muhammad and the Koran or else.....


But whoever seeks beyond that [meaning Sharia/Koranic law], then those are the transgressors;


So As-Saihah (torment - awful cry, etc.) overtook them with justice, and We made them as rubbish of dead plants. So away with the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, disobedient to His Messengers, etc.).


Then We sent Our Messengers in succession, every time there came to a nation their Messenger, they denied him, so We made them follow one another (to destruction), and We made them as Ahadith (the true stories for mankind to learn a lesson from them). So away with a people who believe not.


Christians and non-Muslims are beyond hope, evil, wicked, scheming, stubborn, deceitful.  They will be destroyed by either the cult of Muhammad or the Al Lah.  


Christians and non-Muslims are evil, scheming, devious, satanic and Muslims must punish them. 


So leave them in their error for a time.


Nay, but their hearts are covered (blind) from understanding this (the Qur'an), and they have other (evil) deeds, besides, which they are doing.


Until, when We grasp those of them who lead a luxurious life with punishment, behold! They make humble invocation with a loud voice.


In pride (they Quraish pagans and polytheists of Makkah used to feel proud that they are the dwellers of Makkah sanctuary Haram), talking evil about it (the Qur'an) by night.


And though We had mercy on them [disbelievers] and removed the distress which is on them, still they would obstinately persist in their transgression, wandering blindly.


And indeed We seized them with punishment, but they humbled not themselves to their Lord, nor did they invoke (Allah) with submission to Him.


Until, when We open for them the gate of severe punishment, then lo! They will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair.


Nay, but We have brought them the truth (Islamic Monotheism), and verily, they (disbelievers) are liars.


Say (O Muhammad SAW): " My Lord! If You would show me that with which they are threatened (torment),

Muslims should not associate with the criminal non-Muslims, or Christians.



Christians and non-Muslims are Satanic and to be avoided by Muhammadans. 


"My Lord! Then (save me from Your Punishment), and put me not amongst the people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doing)."


And indeed We are Able to show you (O Muhammad SAW) that with which We have threatened them.


Repel evil with that which is better. We are Best-Acquainted with the things they utter.


And say: "My Lord! I seek refuge with You from the whisperings (suggestions) of the Shayatin (devils).


 There will be eternal punishment for the Infidel Criminals:


And those whose scales (of good deeds) are light, they are those who lose their ownselves, in Hell will they abide.


The Fire will burn their faces, and therein they will grin, with displaced lips (disfigured).


"Our Lord! Bring us out of this; if ever we return (to evil), then indeed we shall be Zalimun: (polytheists, oppressors, unjust, and wrong-doers, etc.)."


He (Allah) will say: "Remain you in it with ignominy! And speak you not to Me!"


Rather clear. Remember that the best Moslem is the most erstwhile of slaves:



Verily! There was a party of My slaves, who used to say: "Our Lord! We believe, so forgive us, and have mercy on us, for You are the Best of all who show mercy!"


The Koran is very enthusiastic about punishing the Infidel and impious Muslim.  For example, calling Muhammad insane (he was and Sura 23-05 says he was), or a sex addled, sex-and-slave trading Jihadist-brigand (he was), or a military leader who murdered innocents, is to invite punishment:



"He is only a man in whom is madness, so wait for him a while."



Or say they: "There is madness in him?" Nay, but he brought them the truth [i.e. "(A) Tauhid: Worshipping Allah Alone in all aspects (B) The Qur'an (C) The religion of Islam,"] but most of them (the disbelievers) are averse to the truth.


These are the pillars of the Muhammad cult.  23-05 admits that yes Muhammad appears at times to be temporarily insane, but that is fine.  He brought the Nur or Light to the pagan Arabs establishing the pillars of continuing to worship Baal or Al Lah, the Koran which explains the practices and rituals of the cult, and the veneration of Muhammad. 


The Believers chapter is a restatement of why the cult benefits only those who follow the diktats of the 'great man' Muhammad. The Believers must (eventually) win through, - "Those who humble themselves in their prayers....Again, on the Day of Judgement, you will be raised up.” [23:2]


Believe and 'win' against the enemies of the Meccan moon cult and enter Heaven. Humble yourself and prostrate your humanity before an Arab idol and be successful.

“We made them as rubbish of dead leaves (floating on the stream of Time!) So away with people who do wrong!” [23:41].


'Wrong' for Muslims means not following Islam of course.  This means that Unbelievers and impious Muslims should be killed.  Why the Western ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’ don’t accept this hate speech for what it is, is very curious.


Bearing False Witness, by Rodney Stark, #2.

Believing anti-Catholic propaganda, is not 'enlightened' or 'rational'.

Bookmark and Share


First part here.

Stark correctly assesses that much of the ‘Enlightenment’ is anti-Catholic propaganda issued in the main, by Protestant authors, anti-Papists, and those opposed for various, reasons to the Catholic Church including many such as Voltaire who viewed themselves as godly (the chapel on his estate was inscribed to his own glory).  The fact that none of the criticasters built, made or did much of anything of value seems to have been missed by modern day apologia.  Tonnes (literally in weight) of documents can attest to the profound progress endemic in Medieval Europe, notwithstanding the onslaught of pagan Muhammadans, Avars, Magyars and Vikings who linked up with the Muslims in the White Slave trade.  Rest assured, pace the ‘progressive’ and ‘scientific’ culture of today, Muslims have no need to bend knees to Whites.  Indeed, you can’t find an academic or ‘expert’ book or article criticising any aspect of the Muhammadan cult.  Plenty are issued each year declaiming in the shrillest possible decibels against Medieval (and White) history.  That should tell the observer plenty (but usually doesn’t).


Antidotes to the dreary and ignorant pro-Muslim, anti-Catholic bias can be found in March Bloch, Francis and Joseph Gies, Jean Gimpel, and Lynn Townsend White Jr., all used by Stark as sources.  Must reads must also include Ferdinand Braudel, and Henri Pirenne. 


Stark relates some wonderful milestones in the Medieval era, just a tithe of what could be mentioned:


-The Domesday Book of 1086 reported that there were 5,624 water powered mills, or 1 per 50 people in England, which is a vast understatement.  When the Romans left circa 410 AD there were none.


-Woollen cloths manufacturing was enabled on an industrial scale due to these water mills, allowing the English to be the European leaders in wool production.


-Dams were abundant during the Medieval period, many of them still standing.  One built at Toulouse was more than 1300 feet in width, much larger than any bridge built by the Romans in Europe.


-Windmills unknown to the Romans, became common.  Manufacturing of wood products, grain grinding, woollen materials and textiles was rife, as well as reclaiming marsh and lands close to the sea.  Huge portions of Belgium and Holland were reclaimed using literally tens of thousands of devoted windmills.  As Stark relates the density of windmills was so legion that lawsuits in the 12th century became numerous citing the blocking of wind from competing windmills, spawning a new industry of lawyers.


-Three field agricultural rotation was perfected.  Again, unknown to the Romans or Muslims.  This renewal of land resulted in greater food production, an increase in population and even economic wealth.


-Introduction of the heavy plough, allowed the development of farming in the heavier, thicker soils of northern Europe. 


-Introduction of the horse collar and the breeding of draught horses for farming who were more efficient than oxen and ate less, thereby costing less and allowing for more profits to be made and reinvested in agriculture.


-Chimneys were invented and immensely important allowing homes and businesses to be heated and the roofs to be closed improving health and safety. 


-Eyeglasses were manufactured en-masse no later than the 13th century in Italy raising the productivity of those with poor eyesight.


-Horses capable of carrying heavy calvary were bred, forever changing warfare, using the innovative bridle and stirrups, with a proper saddle. 


-Sailing ships and all the complicated technology associated with sea and ocean-going vessels from the Viking longship to the history-changing use of wind power seen in the caravel and 3 masted sloops.  Romans and Muslims relied on slave-powered galleys not technology.


-Ending of slavery.  Roman, Muslim, Ameri-Indian, Chinese and other societies were slave based.  This is one reason for the lack of innovation and technological progress.  Roman society was stagnant long before Christ.  By the 9th century, Christian Europe had ended slavery.  Charlemagne’s long wars against the Saxons for instance, ended the Saxon slave trading of whites, Christians and the enslavement of Saxon natives. 


-Polyphonic music was invented at least by the 8th century.  Violins, string instruments, wind instruments, the piano, the massive cathedral organs and musical notation were all invented in the medieval era, developed by the 13th century.  Nothing comparable existed in Rome or the Muhammadan states.


-Art was transformed including 3-D painting on stretched canvasses, using an array of oils and paints, with a wide range of experimental designs and colours.  Nothing in the ancient or Muslim empires can even be compared to Medieval art, which for the first time, depicted not only Biblical scenes, but real life, aspirations, emotions, and movements.


-Architecture was vastly superior to anything seen in the past.  Huge Cathedrals were built between the 11th and 13th centuries all over Europe, denoting a culture that was wealthy, skilled, innovative and well-organised.  Arches, flying buttresses, towers, mortar, new techniques and designs proliferated forever changing how buildings were constructed.  Stained glass allowed in light and windows became common features improving general health and homeliness.


-Literature poured forth in the Medieval era leading to the creation of European vernacular languages.  Each nation produced its own body of vernacular writers and works which shaped national psyches. 


-Universities and public schools were invented in Medieval Europe.  By the 12th century these proliferated across the Continent, supported and funded by the Church and the State.  By the early 13th century Paris, Oxford and Bologna would have 1500 students or more, with each University beginning to specialise in different areas from medicine to theology and naturalism.  Most villages had a Church funded public school for the young with free education given from the ages of 5 to 13. 


-Science flourished including optics, mathematics, biology, human anatomy, astronomy, geo-centricity, physics and chemistry based on the failed pagan practices of alchemy.  The scientific revolution is best situated in the 12th to 17th centuries, animated by Christians.  The Enlightenment after all produced abiogenesis, a biologically and scientifically impossible theory.


The animus against Medievalism and the Catholic Church is one of bigotry and ignorance.  As Stark summarises, ‘It has been conventional to date the Age of Reason as having begun in the seventeenth century.  In truth, it really began in the second century, launched by early Christian theologians.  Sometimes described as ‘the science of faith’, theology consists of formal reasoning about God.  The emphasis is on discovering God’s nature, intentions and demands and on understanding how these define the relationship between human beings and God.’


There has never been a conflict between reason and faith.  That is anti-Catholic propaganda.  Christians invented modern science, logic, reasoning, math and much else.  Believing anti-Christian and anti-Catholic propaganda by those wedded to their own religions be it the ‘Enlightenment’, Darwinism, Covid, Scientism, or the various hues of Rational-Humanism, is unlikely to lead one to truth, understanding and a will to fight to preserve civilisation.  Debase your heritage and lose your future.



Bearing False Witness, by Rodney Stark, #1.

Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History.

Bookmark and Share

The ‘Science’.  The ‘Enlightenment’.  The age of ‘Rational, Humanism’.  The ‘Dark Ages’.  Nonsense all of it.  Precious little ‘science’ exists in today’s world if one views the scientific method, transparency, free speech and actual experimental-observational data.  Too much outside of applied technology is simply dogmatic philosophy and religion.  The ‘Enlightenment’ gave us abiogenesis, materialism, wars, witch burnings, socialism, a-historical revisionism and now gender-climate confusion and derangement syndromes.  Hardly a blessing.  Being a ‘rational humanist’ does not mean anything since the words, like the philosophies and religions they support, are empty jargon.  Irrationally believing that bacteria can build a human brain is neither a demonstration of rationality nor of humanism.  Quite the opposite in fact, it is irrational and human hating, debasing human exceptionalism and equating you with nothing.


Screaming ad infinitum that the ‘Dark Ages’, themselves a myth, produced only superstitious hairy idiots who inter-alia invented eye-glasses, mechanical clocks, complex farming technology, blast furnaces and the printing press, but who of course so the propaganda states, were certain of a ‘flat earth’ (hence the sorry lies about Columbus), does not make the claim or its attendant propaganda true.  It simply denotes the bigotry and ignorance of the professor of such illiteracy.  Stark:


“By the fifteenth century (and for many centuries before) every educated European, including Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round.  The opposition Columbus encountered was not about the shape of the earth, but about the fact that he was wildly wrong about the circumference of the globe.  He estimated 2,800 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan.  In reality, it is about 14,000 miles.”


The earth’s sphericity was known in the ancient world and by the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy and many Greek-Roman Christians were busy formulating astronomical observations and related mathematics to explain size, circumference, and even rotation.  These ideas were kept, improved upon and debated during the Middle Ages in Byzantium and Europe.


As Stark explains much of the Enlightenment ‘thinking’, evinced in over-rated individuals such as Gibbon or Voltaire is simply anti-Catholic propaganda.  When the state erected national Protestant Churches in Germany, Holland and England, the intense hatred of ‘Popery’ and of Catholic Institutions, many of which were painted as corrupt and self-serving, was manufactured.  Gibbon blaming Catholics for the fall of the pagan, slave-based and quite crude Roman Empire.  Voltaire mocking the great engineering projects of Cathedrals as ‘Gothic’ or Barbarian.  Diderot and Hume declaiming against Scholasticism and Medieval learning including universities, naturalism and even optics, moving such innovations into their age.  The calumnies, distortions and lies were endless, all based on a hatred of the Catholic Church.  None of these thinkers invented a single thing.  Nothing.  Yet they felt free to condemn 1000 years of complex history which preceded them, referring to their own good selves as experts and of course, the enlightened.


Stark, ‘…the notion that Europe fell into the ‘Dark Ages’ was a hoax perpetrated by very antireligious intellectuals such as Voltaire and Gibbon, who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of the ‘Enlightenment’….perhaps the most important factor in the myth of the Dark ages was the inability of intellectuals to value or evern to notice the nuts and bolts of real life.  Hence, revolutions in agriculture, weaponry and warfare, nonhuman power, transportation, manufacturing, and commerce went unappreciated.  So too did remarkable moral progress for example, at the fall of Rome there was slavery everywhere in Europe; by the time of the Renaissance it was long gone.”


The modern age is no different.  Largely obese people, squinting into small screens or watching streaming soft-porn, have likewise pronounced themselves as ‘scientific’ and ‘data driven’, above the superstition of a Church, focused on Dark Matter and ‘evolving structures’.  Whatever. 


The Romans had little water or wind power.  Slaves were sufficient to run their agricultural economy until the inevitable implosion due to political corruption, civil wars, inflation and economic stagnation, not to mention immorality, licentiousness and a strain of fatalism and self-doubt.  It was Christian Europe which created the wind and waterpower to generate manufactured items from clothing to cutting timber and providing consistent irrigation to water agriculture.  Reclaimed lands from marshes and the sea, improved agricultural tooling, crop rotations, new crop introductions, homeopathy, hospitals, hostels, clocks, improved roads and bridges, parliaments, writing, scriptoriums, libraries, universities, Cathedrals, stained glass, chimneys, fireplaces, glass windows….the list of improvements is quite endless, including the ending of slavery.  With the coming of the pagan Muslims, Avars, and the White-slave trading partners of the Muslims, the pagan Vikings, the necessity for strong local defence, feudalism developed as the only reasonable response, in essence, a contract between the local population and a strong-military leader for protection.  Given human nature this rational mode of survival was corrupted and extended negating many centuries of freedom and movement, but not curtailing or ending the inexorable development to the free farmer and citizen.  It was of course, as any objective historian would confirm, far better than what existed under Rome, and given the three-pronged attack and the Viking-Muslim white slave trade which enslaved millions in Western Europe (another fact you won’t hear anything about), an entirely legitimate organisation. 


In their religious intolerance of Catholicism, we now have the ‘moderns’, mostly Atheist, certainly ignorant, now declaiming that Medieval Moorish-Muslim Spain was the apogee of civilisation, overshadowing that of anything Christian Europe could throw up.  This ridiculous and untrue claim is taught of course as consensus-science and fact.  The opposite is largely true.  Muslim Spain was an intolerant Muhammandan occupation which destroyed, raped, and squatted on Christian lands.  If it was such a paradise why would Christians spend 750 years reconquering it?  If it was such a nirvana, surely they would have gladly participated and converted to Muhammad’s moon cult?


Stark, “Maimonides (1135-1204) (the most famous of Jewish philosophers in the Middle Ages), makes a travesty of these claims.  In 1148, the Maimondes family pretended to convert to Islam when the Jews of Cordoba were told to become Muslim or leave, upon pain of death….after eleven years of posing as converts, the Maimonides family became so fearful of discovery that they fled to Morocco where they continue their deception…His story clearly reveals that, as Richard Fletcher has put it so well, ‘Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most civilised epoch’”.


The Muslim Inquisition, which predates the Spanish Catholic, killed some 50.000 or more impious Muslims, Jews and Christians, often in raids, wars, or pograms.  Cordoba and Granada alone saw more than 7.000 Jews killed in pograms.  By contrast the Spanish Inquisition killed 3.000 conversos or recent converts (Jews, Muhammandans) to Catholicism, over 250 years, mostly for treason.  Given 750 years of warring against Muslims and their Jewish allies in Spain, this is not an entirely unreasonable action.  You will not hear about the Muslim Inquisition.  The incessant war cry from the academics and ‘science’ is that the Catholic Inquisition was sat on every corner, scrutinising every movement, torturing every person, raping every comely female to extract confessions and satiating those uncontrollable monks, and murdering millions in large auto-da-fe’s.  No more than 200 Dominicans at any time were involved with the Inquisition and it was always the state, not the Church which killed the heretical.  It is thus unlikely that a black hooded friar was squatting on every corner.


The rewriting of Catholic history is political and theological.  It seeks to demean the European-Christian past.  In this age of anti-White racism, the hatred of the Middle Ages is linked to the racist-project to debase and if possible eradicate the history of White Civilisation.  The fantastic legacy of Christians and Whites are now to be abolished.  I have even read from the more demented and lunatic, that European Whites were actually Black and there is no White race per se.  Other anti-White racists provide a constant stream of false narratives that Ameri-Indians, Chinese or Hindoos, or of course the favourite pets the Muslims, were the real progenitors of anything that is great and good.  The White Christian, far from producing anything of value, simply raped, stole, murdered and infected his superiors.  Such animistic hate for real history is now fed to the populace in the de-education programs of schooling, news and ‘science’.  The outcome is going to be the end of civilised progress. 


When you demolish your heritage, you wipe out your future.


Taqiya: Muhammadanism, Nazism, Communism. Lies, Deceit, Mendacity.

All part of the program to subvert and take over.

Bookmark and Share


The ‘modern’ world, so in love with its false diversity, its intolerance of anything but masochistic groupthink and consensus, its disavowal of real history, real progress, real values and real intelligence, is the perfect laboratory for Muslims to implement Taqiya – the law of lying to the Infidel to advance the claims of Muhammadanism.  No society has been better positioned for self-immolation and suicide than the current, ‘modern’, ‘scientific’ Western civilisation.  As the 3.000-year development of Occidental progress regresses toward the mean of mediocrity and failure; Muslim Oriental mores can swagger to the fore, using a variety of techniques to take over many aspects of Western civilisation including its Deep State institutions, police and judiciary – hiding behind lies and deceit.  As Muhammad stated, ‘war is deceit’. 


The core of the Muhammadan fascism, which makes it an easy and congenial ally to Globalists, Socialists, Marxists, Flu Totalitarians, Green Fascists and the usual cadre of anti-individualists who commit vote fraud to install political puppets, is the complete eradication of the individual.  Muhammadanism at its core has 6 pillars, the 2 most important being submission to Al-Lah (Baal the moon deity of Mecca and Muhammad’s family’s deity), and Muhammad the only spokesman who could interpret the wishes of Baal.  The 3rd most important pillar is course to Jihad, to fight the Unbeliever, the non-Muslim until the first two demands are rendered, or to kill those who will not submit.  It is a pretty simple totalitarian programme, denying the various precepts which undergird what was once Western Civilisation.  The main reason that the Muhammadan Fascism is tolerated (and the mistake made by the Atheist Nazis and the Atheist Russian Communists/Nazis); is that Muhammad and Muslims have conflated submission to the male moon deity Al-Lah with monotheistic Judaic and Christian traditions.  This pastiche of ‘morality’ hides the lie that is the Koran and Sharia barbarism.  Lying is after an Arab speciality and much admired.  One finds that deceit is mentioned throughout Mein Koran as a modus veritas of global imperialism.


Both the atheist Russian supremacists and the atheist Nazi pagans relied on propaganda to soak their citizenry in the irrational fascist program and support it and to convince the world of the 'morality' of their projects. Communism was sold on Marx and Lenin's illiterate ravings, that the 'capitalist' system due to its own illogic, the 'iron law' of diminishing returns, and the costs of 'imperialism', would crash and destroy the lives of the workers, the peasants, the farmers, or those not in power. It was the ultimate universal, will-to-power expression of Marxism.


Nazism was marketed and bought by the German people due to several never-to-be-repeated factors.  The propaganda as with the current ‘Covid pandemic’ was relentless, mind-numbing, fictitious and exaggerated to an incredible degree.  Hitlerism and Nazism is of course a communal, left-wing concept.  The Nazis fought the Communists and Marxists for the same political space. Hitler admits this in Mein Kampf, and gleefully writes that the Nazis had taken the best aspects of Marxist thought [equality, unionism, job and social payment guarantees, free education, free health care etc] and married it with an intolerant nationalist racism, in which the Germans were deemed to be man's highest form of human achievement in body, mind and soul, and had a duty to conquer the planet to impose a perfect Nordic-pagan world of Teutonic purity which would give rise in the future to a super race of exalted humanoids.


Both the Russian and German communalist programs were theologies of madness, nonsense, gibberish, irrationality and anti-humanist savagery.  So too is Islam. Part of these pagan belief systems is to lie to the 'others', to hide the true nature of the program.  Like the Muslims, the Nazis and Russians lied to 'sell' their misbegotten beliefs to the world at large. Or they lied so they could stealthily expand their program without being confronted.


Hitler remonstrated many times that he did not want to conquer lands to create a Germanic empire – even though in Mein Kampf he details rather painstakingly how Germany will conquer Eastern and Western Europe. He gave no less than half a dozen speeches in the mid-1930s, confirming that Germany would never go to war with Britain, and that the British and Germans were natural allies. These statements were given to keep the British from rearming and to give credence to the vast and quite active pro-peace parties and politicians than active in England.  These speeches were lies.


The Nazis also disavowed any knowledge of Jewish genocide right up until the war. The first Jewish and political-prisoner concentration camps were erected in 1934 – a mere one year after Hitler became Chancellor. Yet the world was 'shocked' to learn during the war that millions of Jews were being liquidated. The Nazis also had legions of charities and 'free' social goods, which made Western Marxists and socialists ejaculate with admiration and with joy. 'Free' baby items, including diapers and strollers were given to new-borns; jobs were guaranteed partially through the building of massive and outside of the Autobahn, quite useless colossi; pensions increased, welfare was extended, education paid by the state, and 'youth groups' got out the German 'vote' so to speak, and informed Germans about physical exercise and the necessity to follow the Dear Leader Adolf.  These programs were ones of deceit, to deceive foreign states, meld compliance from the local population and convince them of the utility of Fascism (jobs, health, safety).


The Nazis also lied of course about their economic growth, their GDP growth, and the strength of their economy – all believed by willing and quite useless idiots in the West. The Nazi state was an autarchic state. There was no foreign investment, and tight government regulation of all investment and capital flows, with only the importation of resources being allowed to fuel the German economy and army. War in 1939 was inevitable because Germany was bankrupt and drowning in debt.


The Russians followed a similar program of mendacity as the Nazis.  Stalin wrote that he learnt a lot from Hitler and admired his tactics and ability to create an all-powerful state, under the guise of something which was perceived as natural and normal.  During the Cold War the same lies used by the Nazis were paraded about by the Russians, and all of them were believed by Lenin's useful idiots in the West: strong economic growth; civilizational development and cultural expansion; a contented and moderate populace; strong, virile, athletic people; no pretensions to world domination; abundant food; a plethora of caring charities; an illimitable number of inventions; and opportunities for all citizens.


Modern Islam, whose Jihadic-tendencies are obvious over 1400 years of endless Muslim imperialism, expansion, slave-trading, destruction, violence, hate and will-to-power; is simply following what the Nazis and Russians practiced. It is the cultural Marxist program of using lies to deceive your opponent’s so you can get inside the system and change it from within. There is no chance that Islam will return to its powerful position in the world system, once enjoyed by the pagan Fascists in the Ottoman empire. But there is a very good chance that they can detonate the destruction of the West from inside our society, using Taqiyya to blind us from the reality that is Islam.


Taqiyya is the following:

·       Sunni doctrine makes Taqiyya acceptable and mandatory when waging jihad or war against the infidel.

·       The Shia doctrine of Taqiyya being 'fear' of persecution and lying to prevent such persecution has been supplanted by the Sunni ideal of using Taqiyya to spread Islam. [Most of the Muslim world some 80%, is Sunni].

·       Deceit in Islamic theory and practice is often elevated to be better than military virtue or courage.

·       The Koran adjures the use of deceit towards non-Muslims [3:28, 3:54, 8:30, 10:21, for example).


Mohammed's ruthless, murderous career was full of Taqiyya, the breaking of contracts, agreements, peace treaties and accords. As Mohammed said in one battle, 'For war is deceit.' He famously broke many treaties in his bloodthirsty expansion of his family's cult and his moon cult ideology.


The Koran and Islamic scholarly writing make it clear that Taqiyya is a part of war; and since Islam must either subjugate or exterminate non-believers through jihad, Taqiya as deception is mandatory. The Koran and Islamic writing make it clear that Muslims can break agreements if they 'feel' that the infidel are about to abrogate their contract. No proof of this is needed. Just the 'feeling' that the non-believer is 'up to something'. A pre-emptive attack and breakage of the treaty is thus permitted.


The Muslim world-view of the House of Islam at perpetual war with the Infidel, makes Taqiyya in practice totally acceptable. This endless war will only end when the world is Islamic. Islam is no less irrational, deceitful, corrupt or inane than any other Fascism. Why would anyone believe a moon cult or spokesmen for an Arabian celestial cult when they cry that they love you, the world, the children's future, and want the same in life as you do? Why are people so pathetically numb to reality and so dense?


Muslim mores are Oriental in their design and fabrication. They are not Western mores. There is no Golden Rule in Islam, no respect for the person, and certainly no division of church and state, regardless of what Muslims say. Read the Koran. Read the life of Mohammed. Read the real history of Muslim imperialism. Read about the 300 million dead, the 50+ million enslaved Blacks, and the 25 million slave-traded Whites over 1400 years. Read it. Read Mein Kampf, read Lenin's writings, read Stalin's re-interpretations of Marxist theology. Read them and you will see that the Fascist program was clear and obvious to any who had the energy and the intelligence to acquaint themselves with the real nature of the program.


So too with Islam. The Muslims are expert liars. They say one thing in English or a European language and the opposite in Arabic, Turkish, or Urdu. This is confirmed throughout history. Don't believe them. Never believe them. The moon cult will do any and everything to advance its power. Its central organizing force the execrable Koran, makes it an obligation to wage Jihad, and spread Islam across the globe. Islam is a cult of destruction and anti-humanism on an even grander scale than Hitlerism and Communism.



‘Reformation Myths’, #3 by Rodney Stark. More science in Medieval Universities than in the modern.

Ignoring the contributions of the past and denigrating real history is anti-science.

Bookmark and Share



#1 here and #2 here.

The claims that the ‘Protestant Reformation’ created the ‘modern world’, is as obtuse and incoherent as the fantasy that Muhammadanism fabricated ‘capitalism’, or modern banking, or that the backward bronze-age cult of Mecca, fashioned ‘golden ages’ or apogees of civilisational creation.  Modern civilisation, specifically Western Civilisation, is simply an outgrowth of Christianity and in particular the culture, ethos, mores, and technological developments of Christian Europe over a 1400-year era.  This is an indisputable claim founded on facts, reality, and historical veracity.  One can no more ‘segregate’ Catholic Europe and its civilisational mission and historical immensity from our own modern era, than one would separate the forearm from the hand.  The whole is continuous and greater than the parts.


Among the many myths and propaganda issued now in ‘modern’ ‘education’ and ‘learning’, is the idea that ‘Protestantism’ (16th to 19th centuries), created ‘science’ and levered the world out of the depths of Catholic ‘superstition’ and ‘darkness’ into the light of reason and invention.  The theme of this lie is that no science worthy of the name in any discipline existed, until the fetters of absolutist Catholicism and ‘extremist’ if not fanatical and inquisitorial Christianity were cut down.  This is about as truthful or intelligent as Orwell’s O’Brien torturing Smith until Smith confirmed that two plus two was indeed five.  Modern day axe-grinders torturing history, maiming it, disfiguring facts and reality, until the body of reality is so injured and sliced, that its wounds must be covered by the rags of lies and mendacity, offered as the clothing of truth and reasonableness.  Lies are still lies. 


Stark, ‘Science did not suddenly erupt in a great intellectual revolution during Newton’s time; this era of superb achievements was the culmination of centuries of sustained, normal scientific progress that began as early as the thirteenth century in Europe’s newly invented universities.  After all, Newton’s First Law of Motion was anticipated by Oxford’s William of Ockham (1285-1349) with his insight that once a body is in motion, it will remain so unless some force, such as friction, acts upon it.  This was further refined by the University of Paris professor Jean Buridan (1300-58) who developed the principle of inertia – that unless acted upon by an external force, bodies at rest will stay at rest and bodies in motion will stay in motion.’


Science, mathematics, modern medicine, technological developments (blast furnace, eyeglasses, the printing press and thousands of other inventions, both incremental and unique); developed in Christian Europe and nowhere else, due to the ethos of Christianity which as a culture, had dominated Europe since the 9th century.  There is no other valid explanation.  Christian Europeans knew that Science (including logic, reason, structure), was both necessary and desirable, in order to understand the perfect design of God and his created universe.  It was not a fatalistic (Buddhist), anti-rational (Islam), circular (Greek, Roman), nor ancestor-bound (Confucianism) view of life.  It was linear, dynamic, inventive.


Stark, ‘Whitehead (co-author with Bertrand Russell of the Principia Mathematica (1913), and like Russell an Atheist), had recognised that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science, just as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific enterprise everywhere else.  He explained that: ‘the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpungable belief…..that there was a secret, a secret which can be unveiled…..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.’


Rene Descartes the creator of ‘rationalism’, argued that the laws of nature were perfect and such laws can only exist if God is the perfect creator, acting in a ‘manner as constant and immutable as possible.’ (p. 100).  Most religions or belief systems including Atheism and Darwinism (these are cults, not scientific concerns if anyone bothers to study the bio-chemical, biological reality of the created world); do not have a creation story.  The Universe is simply ‘eternal’, created ex nihilo, no beginning, no purpose, no Creator.  Even post the 16th century as Stark summarises over many pages the majority of scientists were still Catholic, again putting a lie to the theory that only the ‘Reformation’ produced scientific advance. 


Indeed, Stark states and quotes from other scientists that the medieval university contained more science, than modern versions, an absolute truism for any who have witnessed the philosophical and metaphysical emphasis of much of current ‘science’, better renamed as ‘scientism’ or the cult of science as metaphysics.  The modern hubris and manifold ignorance of the medieval era, its creativity, impulse to inquiry and science, its devotion to naturalism in the curiosity to understand and experiment, the dedication to innovation and improvements, does not speak well of the modern era, mired in various cults, purportedly ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ but of course, having little to do with either.


‘Reformation Myths’, #2 by Rodney Stark

No, the 'Reformation' did not invent modern economics, trade, or capitalism.

Bookmark and Share



One of the more ridiculous myths about the ‘Reformation’, is the puerile concept that ‘capitalism’, or trade and exchange supported by complex financial instruments, banking and shipping; was somehow a ‘Protestant’ invention, arising magically, perhaps from ‘Darwinian’ processes, de novo, in the 17th century.  The ignorance of this claim is simply astounding.  Post Roman era states in Europe all had various forms of developing market economies and the great monastic estates were certainly ‘capitalistic’ as far back as the 10th century.  The long duration of market economies is apparent in every region within Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD.  The Catholic Knights Templar established the world’s first international banking systems in the 12th century, Catholic Italian families the first international banks of lending (especially to royalty who often reneged on their loans and destroyed the families and banks), and ‘individuality’ was enshrined in hundreds of inventions from the fall of Rome to the creation of the printing press of 1450; all of which needed capital, innovation, exchange and designs.


As Stark comments, ‘….(studies) using GDP per capita as well as growth of GDP per capita from as far back as 1500 for the 15 major European nations, found no significant correlation between Protestantism and the rise of industrial capitalism.’  Monasteries were the great engines of economic trade, arising in the 6th century and dominating many regions until well into the late Middle Ages.  These centres invented various agricultural techniques and technologies, including the horse collar, 3-field rotation, natural pharmacopoeias, industrial production, wool production, distilleries, wine, beer, textiles, wind and water mills, local banking and a cash-based system of exchange, not to mention Justinian, Canon and Secular laws.


Stark assigns the role of monasteries a prime place in the development of trade and by its derivative social and economic wealth to build a modern society: ‘..they (monasteries) began to specialise in particular crops, or products, and to sell these at a profit allowing them to purchase their other needs, which led them to initiate a cash economy.  They also began to reinvest their profits to increase their productive capacity and, as their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility…’


The monks also created paid and skilled labour forces.  This further improved productivity and innovation.  Specialisation of labour was known long before Adam Smith codified the concept in the 18th century.  As Stark explains, ‘….the great monasteries began to utilise a hired labour force, who not only were more productive than the monks had been, but also more productive than tenants required to provide periods of compulsory labour.  Indeed, these tenants had long since been satisfying their labour obligations by money payments.  Thus, as ‘religious capitalism’ unfolded, monks still faithfully performed their duties, but aside from those engaged in liturgy, the rest now ‘worked’ as executives and foreman.  In this way, the medieval monasteries came to resemble remarkably ‘modern’ firms – well administered and quick to adopt the latest technological advances.’


In you read unbiased accounts of the medieval era, it is obvious that by the 12th century, forms of capitalism, banking, cash exchange, credit financing and extended trade routes and terms of trade, were already established.  By the 13th century influential Catholic theologians including Aquinas and Abertus Magnus, had reaffirmed the right to make a ‘reasonable’ profit, as long as laymen were not treated unjustly through price manipulation or usurious loans.  Their comments on pricing indicate an approval of market rates and matching supply and demand.  The medieval era was also rife with price and quality regulation and surveillance, including loan rates which were managed by state and church to match ecclesiastical expectations.  There is little difference when compared to the state regulation of rates and prices today. 


The monastic conception of capitalism was of course copied and improved by Italian city states, starting as early as the 10th century.  There was a veritable explosion of capital, credit, banking innovation, accounting and other features of a modern economy in Italy from the 10th to 16th centuries.  Italians became the financiers of the European economy, including much to their detriment in many cases, the provisioners of loans to Kings and their wars, many of which would default causing the invested Italian families and their banks to fail.  This expansion in Italian merchant activity is often equated with ‘Reformation’ but like so many myths, it an absolute nonsense.  Long before the 16th century, the Italians were at the forefront of wool, textiles, manufacturing, and long-distance trade and its associated investments and insurance.  This was due to many factors, including geography, proximity to Mediterranean trade routes, a long history of interconnectedness with Mediterranean regions and beyond, capital and intellectual flight from Christian Byzantium in the face of the Muslim Jihad and destruction of Constantinople (completed in 1453, but after 1204, it was a failing state).  As Stark writes concerning Italy, ‘In the tenth century they rapidly began to emerge as the banking and trading centres of Europe, exporting a stream of goods purchased from suppliers in Northern Europe, especially in Flanders, Holland and England, their primary customers being Byzantium and the Islamic states, especially those along the coast of North Africa…For example, eyeglasses…were mass produced in both Florence and Venice and tens of thousands of pairs were exported annually.’


The competition between Catholic Italian city states starting in the 10th century, created innovations in capital organisation.  Banks proliferated.  This gave the needed grease and oil to move the machine of industry and manufacturing along with associated trade and exportation.  As Stark states, ‘By the thirteenth century there were 38 independent banks in Florence, 34 in Pisa, 27 in Genoa, 18 in Venice – a combined total of 173 in the leading Italian city states.  Moreover, most of these Italian banks had foreign branches.  In 1231 there were 69 Italian banking houses operating branches in England and nearly as many in Ireland.’


It is thus ridiculous and contrary to facts to make the oft-cited claim that ‘Protestantism’ or the ‘Reformation’ initiated the modern capitalist-trade systems, along with aligned institutions, mores, and culture.  Any artefact of a modern system already existed during the Medieval period, including Parliaments, national laws, regulations, price controls, exchange controls, banking, international credit, local credit, and culture adopting technology and innovation.  The ‘Reformation’ did not invent anything to do with a modern political-economy.  That is simply a factual truth.


‘Reformation Myths’, by Rodney Stark

Dispensing with the cult dogma of the 'Reformation' and 'Enlightenment'.

Bookmark and Share


The so-called ‘Enlightenment’ taken as ‘scientific fact’, taught and propagated as an inviolably obvious path from ‘Catholic superstition’ to Protestant and Atheist ‘rationality’ and ‘humanism’, is another absurd myth.  Children are taught that the Enlightenment was a by-product of the ‘Reformation’.  No Reformation, No Enlightenment.  Both categories of historical eras, as with so much of the current cadre of ‘settled science’ and ‘known facts’ which distort and infect the modern world, have always been more a set of cult dogma, mired in rituals and repetition, than facts located in reality, or historical processes or linkages.  Few authors or historians even bother to challenge the narrative that the Reformation was a blessing, a new start, a clear path through the dark forest of Catholic superstition to the uplands of light and Science in the Enlightenment period starting in the 18th century.  Stark is one of the few who does and does so quite successfully.


Most historians and people cannot even identify which Reformation they mean:

“However, an embarrassing question that must be answered at any celebration of the Reformation is: which one do you mean?  Three successful Reformations, plus outbursts of Anabaptism, occurred during the sixteenth century….The only common feature…was their rejection of papal authority….Luther’s most important theological claim was that salvation comes through faith alone.  John Calvin taught that salvation cannot be achieved by any means, but is conferred by God for unknown reasons upon a chosen few.  And Henry VIII’s English Reformation conformed to the Roman Catholic position that salvation can be achieved through works as well as faith.”


The ‘Reformation’ is generally attributed to begin with Luther in the early 16th century (1517), who railed against Church taxation and corruption but who also denied free-will and clamoured against the union of faith and reason.  It is difficult to understand how such a position generates ‘science’.  Calvin was a mystic who maintained that only a perfect and small group of pre-selected were destined for heaven.  It is hard to offer proofs how that would lead to innovation and technological advancement.  Henry VIII and his bastard-daughter Elizabeth butchered tens of thousands of Catholics and non-Conformists, burning art, treasure, monasteries and appropriating wealth in the greatest land transfer until the Russian Communist implosion and associated resource takeover by the former Communist party.  It is rather impossible to see how that connects to the scientific method and improvements in logic.


As Stark states: ‘…the achievements attributed to Protestantism are entirely mythical and some of the actual results of the rise of Protestantism were quite unfortunate….equally mythical claims that Protestantism spurred the rise of individualism and its secularization….As for Luther’s legacy of violent anti-Semiticism, it probably will not be mentioned.’ 


Most of ‘Reformation’ was about land, territory, power, and money.  Cutting the papal cord and ending the Vatican chorus of influence.  As Stark proves, most of medieval Europe was religious and Christian, but not in the dogmatic way presented by Hollywood or modern ignorance about the Medieval period.  People in the middle ages were Christian in their own way, depending on local customs, and churches were notoriously empty on Sundays.  The idea that the entire village trooped into the local church, attentive and singing is untrue.  Medieval chronicles lament the lack of attendance and Christian knowledge.  Though likely scandalised by various papal and Church immoralities, transgressions and corruption, the average person most likely did not care that much.  The Reformation was very much a top-down revolt against papal authority.


“…..the enormous value of Church property, and the Church’s continuing financial extractions, served as powerful temptations and bitter grievances.  So long as there had been only One Church, it was risky to challenge papal authority…..But now, Lutheranism offered an alternative source of religious legitimacy, making excommunication an empty threat.  This was why so many German princes rallied to Luther: they gained huge amounts of immediate wealth by seizing Church property…..and they continued to benefit from the flow of tithes and legacies to the state churches they controlled.’


The Reformation allowed the State to take over the Church.  Societal control was merged, both the material and immaterial now resided in the office and throne of one master.  The Reformation was not about ‘throwing off the yoke of Catholic superstition’, or ‘freeing the people from papal tyranny’.  It was simply the act of brigands and self-interested elites, taking over property and wealth, enriching themselves, their courts and their friends all the while cementing power and control over a national territory and appropriating enough riches to fund a state apparatus to guard, police and control said state. 


“Consider that from the shrine dedicated to St. Thomas a Becket alone, Henry’s agents confiscated 4,994 ounces of gold, 4,425 ounces of silver gilt, 5.286 ounces of silver and 26 cartloads of other treasure – and this was regarded at the time as, but a trivial portion of the wealth confiscated from the Church.’


The entire inner circle and court of Henry VIII became fantastically rich on stolen Church land and treasure.  The amounts transferred would be in the many tens of billions of dollars or pounds in today’s money.  This occurred throughout all the territories which became Protestant.  It was the Reformation of course, which then proclaimed the Divine Right to Rule of Kings.  This was never a proclamation of the Catholic Church.  Quite the contrary.  Catholic dogma was clear that God was the only Divine Ruler and that power passed through papal authority.  No King on earth was a lessee of such power.  The Magna Carta was forced on King John in 1215 by Catholic magnates and Bishops, an attempt to neuter Kingly power.  No Catholic supported the idea that the King had divine rights. The first proclamation of the Divine Right of Kings was from James I of England (d.1625) a Protestant.  


Once national Reformation Churches were established ‘religious’ wars began.  Often these conflicts would see Catholics allied with Protestants, as well as both sides fighting each other.  It is difficult to see how this stimulated ‘science’.  Most of these wars had little to do with religion, but more to do with national estates, land, trade, commerce, control, and past grievances.  National Protestant Churches in England, Holland, Germany, Sweden, were engaged for 250 years in various wars in different parts of Europe.  Treasure, blood, onerous taxation would have maimed and disfigured every nation state, thwarting development.  These were aggressive singular entities, not prone to much in the way of Christian charity.  Catholics and dissenters were heavily persecuted, along with ‘witches’, most of whom were Catholics and who were murdered for many reasons including land appropriation or settling disputes and scores. 


The Protestant Churches were also renowned for mandating church attendance, publicly punishing those who did not comply, and displaying an incredible intolerance of any who did not abide by the strictures of the State church.  There was little ‘diversity’ of culture or thought, and it is difficult to make the claim that such attitudes would generate ‘science’ de novo.  It is more likely that the benefits attributed to the poorly named Enlightenment, were in almost all cases already present in Catholic Pre-Reformation society in all areas from trade to science.  In other words, despite the Reformation’s upheaval, warring, intolerance, the cultural attitudes, the characteristics founded by Catholic Europe, were still able to assert themselves to develop technology, shipping, agriculture, governance, exploration and by extension, extend and complicate terms of trade, exchange and idea formulation to develop solutions to problems of increasing complexity.  Such developments never happen de novo but are part of a longer, on-going process.  A good argument can be made (though Stark does not make it in an obvious way), that the Reformation actually retarded and obstructed European civilisation. 


The only ‘creation’ of the ‘Reformation’, which can be objectively supported, is that the theft of Church lands and money, may have stimulated some forms of economic and social growth as money, now managed by state and private actors, wound its way through investments and exchange, perhaps stimulating industry, exploration and development.  However, no study to my knowledge has been undertaken to either prove or disprove this theory.

The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, #3, by Dario Fernandez-Morera

Mass murder, supremacist codes, rapes, beheadings and an inquistion were apparently 'enriching'.

Bookmark and Share


Link to first article.  Link to second.

As the Black, Black-Muslim, Arab-Muslim, Pakinstani-Muslim invasion of Western states proceeds and accelerates, it is of course ‘racist’ (Muhammad’s cult is not a race of course), and ‘phobic’ (scepticism borne out of reality is not a pathological disorder of course), to resist the colonialization of majority-White states.  It is strangely however, ‘patriotic’, ‘rational’, ‘enlightened’ to support the continued majority status of Black, Muslim, Asian-denominated states.  Curious that.  Multi-culturalism, the grand failure it has been, is apparently, only necessary for majority-White states. 


In the context of rewriting history into a sequence of lies and distortions, the self-proclaimed ‘tolerant’, ‘intelligent’, ‘humanist-rationalist’ groups declare that Arab-Muslim Spain, conquered by Muhammadans by 719-720 AD, and under Muslim occupation until 1492, encompassing a large peninsula comprised of Romano-Christians before the invasion, which witnessed almost annual displays of war, slaughter, rape, supremacism, racism and pogroms against Christians, Christian culture and Jews, was certainly a paradise of civilisational greatness, perhaps the apogee of multi-cultural enrichment; this mendaciously named Andalusia was the paragon of society cohesion and coherent advancement, this modern post-Enlightenment cult claims.  Of course, these assertions are fantasy, and none of this narrative is true, as this excellent book by Morera outlines.


Morera devotes an entire chapter which everyone should read, on ‘The myth of the Ummayad tolerance’.  The Ummayads were the first Arab-dominated Caliphate of Spain post their invasion and destruction of the Visgothic-Romano Christian kingdom.  As one Muslim historian Ibn Hazm happily states, the Ummayads were ‘the most afflicting to the enemies of Al-Lah’, meaning the most intolerant of Christians and Jews.  As Morera states, ‘The celebrated Ummayads actually elevated religious and political persecutions, inquistions, beheadings, impalings, and crucifixons to heights unequalled by any other set of rulers before or after in Spain’ (p. 120).  These are facts you won’t hear about or see in films.  Morera mentions many episodes, with a few summarised below, unlikely to be referred to by academics or in their reality-distortion material and lectures.


-Upon conquering Cordoba, the Visigothic-Catholic capital, Muslims set about demolishing St. Vincent’s Cathedral, the main cathedral of worship, to build a Mosque, built by Christians and Jews.


-Abd al Rahman I the first Ummayad Caliph, not only destroyed St. Vincent’s but hundreds of other shrines and Churches of the ‘polytheist’ (trinity-believing) Catholics across Spain, often building mosques on the same location.


-War was an annual Umayyad event to spread the Jihad (even into southern France and Switzerland), and arrest the interminable intra-Muslim, intra-Arab tribal quarrels and rebellions.  The Umayyads were enthusiastic savages, carrying out indiscriminate slaughter of innocents, and those taken prisoner, both Christian and Muslim (rebels).  Severed heads en-masse, were sent back to Cordoba for display, after every raid and war.


-The Umayyads imposed brutal punishments and controls on Christians and Jews, named Dhimmis under Sharia barbarism.  Blasphemy against any aspect of the Muslim occupation, the cult’s founder Muhammad, or Umayyad rule in general, was greeted with a death sentence.  This included any public pronouncement (viewed as proselytization) of the Christian faith, or apostasy from Muslims who either left the cult, or were insufficiently pious (fanatical) enough.  Apostasy in Muhammadanism is punished by death.


-Christians were yoked under a heavy regime of taxation (called Jizya), in which male Muslims paid no taxes, but Christians produced the revenues needed to finance the state, the Muslim armies and the occupation.  Muslim public buildings and mosques were likewise financed with Jizya and built by Christians as unpaid slave labour. 


-Abd al Rahman III instituted Europe’s first inquisition, against Muslim heretics, Jews, and Christians.  The purpose of this inquisition was to punish anyone who dared to stray from, question, or ‘misinterpret’ the Koran, Hadiths and Sharia pronouncements.  The intention was to form what is today called ‘an extremist’ but entirely true and accurate interpretation, across all of society, of the ‘laws’ and rules from the Koran and Hadiths.  Such a program was common across all Muslim states, across all centuries, and was not unique. 


-Starting in at least the 9th century, Muslim crucifixions of Christians and heretical Muslims (apostates) became common, as well as public beheadings.  In 797 in Toledo for example, the entire ‘unruly’ Christian elite of about 700, many of whom had ‘converted’ (by force) to Muhammadanism were crucified.  Similar episodes occurred in Cordoba and elsewhere.  It also was common if Muslims suffered defeat in battle (eg. 929 AD in Leon), that the Muslim caliph would crucify his own soldiers for failing to defeat the polytheists.


-During the late 10th century, the last Umayyad Caliph, al-Mansur, calling himself the ‘Victorious’ launched 60 jihadic raids against Christians in Spain which included rapes, sex trafficking and burning books and Christian sites.  Al-Mansur burnt Zaragoza, Osma, Zamora, Leon, Astorga, Coimbra, and even the holy city of Santiago de Compostela.  In 985 he burnt down Barcelona and enslaved all who did not die.


-After sacking Santiago de Compostela, al-Mansur ordered Christian slaves to carry the great bells from the tower to Cordoba.  These bells were melted down and turned into lamps for the mosque in Cordoba, itself built by Christian slaves from Castile.


The Umayyads occupied Spain as a dictatorial power for almost 300 years.  As an occupying power they demonstrated an extreme lack of tolerance and multi-cultural sensitivity.  Hundred of thousands of Catholic Christians were slaughtered in war, or indiscriminate Jihad.  Hundreds of thousands were taken as slaves including female and young boys as sex slaves. Churches, bridges, libraries, documents, shrines, metal work, artwork, were consigned to the fire.  Entire cities depopulated and desecrated.  The ‘legal system’ carved society into 2 parts; one for the Muslims, a second for the non-citizens, non-entities called Dhimmis or non-Muslims.  Punishments for disobeying Muslim ordinances, supremacist-legal codes, or apostasy and blasphemy were death by beheading, decapitation, or torture. 


It is remarkably ignorant, deceptive, insipid and contrary to factual evidence, that academics or anyone else would cite medieval Spain as a paradise of inter-faith cooperation and cultural enrichment.