Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was superior to anything Islam had developed. Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam. Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions. Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'. Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.
'Consensus' science embedded in late 19th century textbooks and dogma, clearly presented the medieval period as an irrational epoch in which the vast majority of people believed in a flat-earth. This is an utter lie of course. No one after the time of Christ, who was remotely educated or alert, believed in the flat disc theory, a few cranks and misfits excepted. Historian Garwood has compiled an interesting account of the 'flat earth' beliefs, how they came about and why even today some people – such as the atheist-evolutionist who is President of the Flat Earth Society – still believe in them.
'Consensus' history about science in the Medieval period is remarkably ignorant.
“..educated medieval people did not believe the earth to be flat, and it was neither Columbus’s intention nor the outcome of his voyage to demonstrate to doubters that it was a globe.”
“Columbus’s contemporaries assumed that it was spherical – indeed, the point was far beyond any sort of dispute – many believed that the stretch of water between Europe and Asia was uncrossable and sailors risked becoming stranded or running out of food.5 Under these circumstances, what is widely assumed to be his greatest achievement is a chimera: no educated person in fifteenth-century Europe would have imagined that Columbus was bound to sail off the edge of the world.”
Propaganda from Humanists aka Atheists and Naturalists, is not fact:
“Italian humanists, set on glorifying the literary achievements of classical antiquity and their role as restorers of this golden age, likewise promoted the idea that the time that went before them was an era of intellectual stagnation and gloom.”
“Enlightenment propaganda, hope and optimism pervaded the age, and man was depicted as master of his own fate: through rational empirical investigation, it was said, humankind could be improved and progress and perfectibility were achievable. Such endeavours were to be founded on critical thinking; reason and empiricism were posted as the new brooms that would sweep society clean of irrational and outmoded beliefs and institutions.”
From Pythagoras [550 BC] to the Christian Scholastics [1100-1400 AD]; no one believed the Earth was flat:
“Pythagoreans believed that the earth was a globe floating freely in space because the sphere was the perfect shape.”
“Aristotle invoked the proof of ships disappearing over the horizon, hull before masts, along with the earth’s circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse and the different appearance of stars when viewed from different latitudes, to support the contention that the earth was a globe in his book On the Heavens.”
“Greek writers, from Plato to Eudoxus (c. 375 BC), Euclid (c. 300 BC), Aristarchus (c. 310–230 BC) and Archimedes (287–212 BC), accepted a globular earth, while Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology – centring on an immobile sphere at the centre of the universe with the planets moving around it in perfect concentric circles – was to dominate Western cosmological thinking until the work of Copernicus and Galileo nineteen centuries later.”
“popular Roman writers Pliny the Elder (c. 79), Macrobius (c. 400), Martianus Capella (c. 420) and Boethius (c. 480–524), all of whom helped the Ptolemaic view of a spherical earth to survive in the Christian West without any input from the Islamic world.”
Christian belief was vital in the development of civilization, and so central to its creation, that there is no modern world without it:
“Christianity had a critical role in preserving and spreading the scientific knowledge that had survived from Greco-Roman times. Of particular importance was the study of the quadrivium, the study of four liberal arts – arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music (often accompanied by medicine) – which took place in monastic and cathedral schools between the fifth and twelfth centuries and further disseminated knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth.”
Science is never settled. Even extremely smart Catholics such as Kepler and Copernicus had no idea about the real distance from the Earth to the Sun [90 million miles]:
“...earth’s distance from the sun, for example, Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles ‘for either would do well’.”
Copernicus was off by 97% [the usual percentage given for scientific 'consensus']. I doubt that many today would call him a quack. In any event Christians were central to the innovations in all areas of science. Stating otherwise only shows the ignorance of the speaker.
Post-Modern geniuses usually attack an opponent, oftentimes quite spuriously, as a 'flat earther'. This is a rather curious ad-hominem considering that the Flat Earth Society's President believes in the fiction of evolution and globaloneywarming. Behind the slander – wrongly directed usually - is the concept that medieval Christians were 'flat earthers', licking the dirt, moaning to their idols, and completely ignorant of the world around them – until of course that god of science Galileo strutted upon the scene. Then suddenly, magically, the world of thought, inquiry and science was transformed......
Factually no one believed in a flat earth after circa 300 B.C. including Christians, who discovered modern science, including calculating and defending long before Columbus, the circumference and sphericity of the Earth.
The Ptloemaic universe, created by the Greeks in Alexandria in the 1rst century AD had accurate calculations of the earth's circumference. Alexandria was by the 3rd century a Christian-Greek city, wiped out by the Moslems circa 642 AD. Ptolemy was not a Christian but many of his associates, students and acolytes were certainly Christian. The observational data around sphericity and even heliocentricity long predate Galileo and the 'Enlightenment', which was in many ways, quite unenlightened.
Isiah in the Old Testament for example mentions the spherical nature of the earth [he that sitteth upon the sphere...]. Christianity has never been opposed to natural reality. There is no proof that Christians in any era en-masse, believed that the earth was a piece of flat-bread, floating in the ether [as per Aristotle who wrongly believed in geo-statis, and cosmological fixity]. Christian philosophers and scientists who discussed the 'roundness' of the globe in their writings, letters and books include [see also Garwood's Flat Earth: History of an Infamous idea, here]:
-Boethius 5th century
-Bede 7th century
-Alcuin 8th century
-Peter Lombardus 12th century
-Duns Scotus 13th century
-Christian Scholastics – various - from 13th to 15th centuries [See Grosseteste 13th c.]
-Thomas Aquinas 13th century
-Dante 13th century
-Pierre D'Ailly 14th century
[used by Columbus to prove that the voyage could be profitable, see the book 'Columbus the Intrepid Mariner, by Sean Dolan here]
Only 2 minor Christian writers rejected the early Greek, Christian discoveries on the earth's shape. One was the ineradicably dumb Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity in his mid-life for reasons unknown and who rejected current Church teaching that the earth was a globe. His minor writings were dug up during the Renaissance and used as a cudgel against the Church. He had no following in his own life. A second ignoramus was the 6th century Greek Christian 'Cosmos', who likewise rejected reality and proof and opined about a flat earth as being conversant with the Bible [it most certainly is not]. Both of these men were declared heretics by the Church and their works forgotten until the early modern period.
For the record, Moslems will offer that a converted non-Arab Al Bruni 'found' the circumference of the earth. This is nonsense. Greeks and Christian astronomy and mathematical inferences pre-date Bruni by 700 years. Moslems offer nothing in science and technology to compete with the 200 Christian inventors and scientists one can name from 500-1500 AD. The idea that Moslems 'calculated' the earth's sphericity is a lie. Christians and non-Moslems had translated extant Greek sources of Aristarchus and Eratosthenes into Arabic but Moslem astrology which never mutated into astronomy, is remarkably meagre. In any event, ascribing to a Moslem, a known-world view which pre-dates Islam by 700 years is remarkably dumb.
The atheists, who also call themselves humanists, progressives and 'scientists', are so desperate to prove that there is a 'war' between science and Christianity; that historical rewriting to an insane degree is mandatory to achieve their objective. In every single atheist-materialist textbook, website of disinformation, and or dialectical presentation of contra-reality 'science'; the name of 'Bruno' is uttered. It is absurd. Bruno, the 16th century mystic and magi, was not a martyr to science, but to theology. The difference is quite extraordinary. For the real story of Bruno see here.
Bruno was a disgraced Dominican monk, who was quite likely mentally ill. He believed in magic, multi-verses, self-impregnating universes, and that Christ was just a clever conjurer and Moses a magi priest. Why the man ever became a monk is hard to understand. It would be as if Stephen Hawking was the archbishop of Canterbury, or Richard Dawkins a Cardinal. The untutored and unintelligible Bruno was a powder keg ready to explode.
In a recent TV crockumentary on 'Science vs. Religion' named Cosmos, the Bruno myth was dusted off and presented as 'fact'. As with all matters of the theology named materialism, lies are paraded as facts. One reviewer, who commented:
“Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.”
Not one single scientific experiment was ever performed by this supposed martyr to 'science'. Bruno had as much to do with the burgeoning, expanding, exciting endeavors of science in the Middle Ages, as Islam. That is to say nothing.
It is a tiresome fiction, but like the Galileo myth, much believed in by those who have little interest in real history or facts. The Galileo tale is such a sordid lie that only atheists, quacks in academia and social sciences, along with the mainstream media could possibly believe in it [see here].
Bruno is another fable, right up there with the tooth-fairy tales of evolution and globaloneywarming. In the atheist-Marxist rewriting of 'humanist' history; Bruno was a soldier of science; fighting alone, abandoned, surrounded by the hostile pagans of the Catholic Church, bloodied, beaten, gored by the wicked superstitious idiots of the Christ cult; campaigning for light and reason against morons of paleo-knuckle-dragging irrationality. Without Bruno and his martyrdom the academics say; there would never be a world of rational science.
As with most tales of quackademia and Marxist rewriting, the story of Bruno, like Galileo, is a myth.
Giordano Bruno [1548-1600] was a disgraced, defrocked monk, who was executed in 1600 not for 'science', but for magic. He was not sentenced by the Catholics for his support of heliocentricity or Copernican theory, which in 1600 was unproven. Indeed the Church in the main both funded and supported Copernicus. It was the academics invested in Aristotle and Ptolemy who vociferously objected to a new conception of the cosmos. In any event Bruno was in the main a rabble-rousing lunatic, as divorced from science and observation, as evolution and globlaoneywarming are from reality.
Catholic scientists long before Galileo, using higher mathematics and observations had radically altered the cosmology of the universe. Grosseteste, Cusa, Copernicus and others had developed math, models, formulations and observations into a narrative of a universe which was expanding, in which the earth was not the centre [though miraculously, perfectly placed and engineered for life]; and that the infinite cosmos was itself embedded with natural physical laws and ratios.
Bruno simply took this emerging science, what was already extant; and married it with magic. He was not an innovator, nor did he ever engage in the scientific method. Not one single experiment is attributed to Bruno. He was largely a mystical quack who proposed some very strange ideas about metaphysics, and who argued that God’s infinite power could only be expressed by creating infinite worlds, a theory we hear repeated today [absent the idea of God] through the magic of 'multiverses' and self-impregnating universes. Indeed, life from non-life in other words. This is not science, but fiction. Multi-verses are no more a scientific fact that walking fish with evolving human heads. [see Yates, 'Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition'].
Much of his magical nonsense derived from Neoplatonists [3rd century AD whose doctrines were subsumed into Christian theology], from Ficino [1433-1499] an Italian humanist [today this means atheist]; and the German magician, occultist and alchemist, Agrippa von Nettesheim [1486-1535]. Bruno was influenced by these men, and developed his own philosophical view of cosmology and theology which directly opposed Church doctrine. As a [former] monk and priest, this presented a direct assault on the Church. Bruno denied the divinity of Christ and actively campaigned that the Galilean was just a clever magician. This was the crux of the problem that the Church had with Bruno. It was not about science, but simply about theology.
Historian Joel Shackleford in his book, 'Galileo goes to jail' writes that;
“the Catholic church did not impose thought control on astronomers, and even Galileo was free to believe what he wanted about the position and mobility of the earth, so long as he did not teach the Copernican hypothesis as a truth on which Holy Scripture had no bearing.”
[note; it was not until the Catholic Kepler could provide the mathematical calculations to support Copernicanism and elliptical orbits that heliocentricity could be viewed as science.]
and as Shackleford correctly states, people need to:
“look beyond the construction of the myth of Bruno as a moralistic topos in the triumphant struggle between the freedom of scientific inquiry and the shackles of conformity it the dead letter of religious revelation. Instead we must examine the actor’s own contexts for clues to meaning and categories that can explain his history. In Bruno’s day, theology and philosophy were of one piece, inseparable.”
There never has been a conflict between science and religion. Bruno ran afoul of theological and Church dogma. He should not have been executed, and the Church had no business in creating a martyr to magic. He was a quack with a limited following and would have expired in anonymity. This is the real tragedy of Bruno.
Obama might or might not be a Moslem. What is undeniable is that he sympathizes with Islam. There is no doubt that his administration is the 3rd largest contributor to the death and destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, after Saudi Arabia and Iran. I do not seriously doubt that if a pan-nationalist Caliphate under the auspices of ISIS or some variety of Moslem totalitarianism, came into being, the US State department and this administration would do nothing except fund it.
The Iraq war was won in 2007 and Iraq was quiescent by 2009. If the West is going to neuter 'extremist' Islam you will need bases in key strategic areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Without the US military actively involved in the region, Moslem fascism will assert itself and another 9-11 becomes only a matter of time. In due course Christians and non-Moslems will be annihilated and expunged from the region. Surely a moment of joy and effusive jubilation for Western Marxists and lovers of the moon cult.
I wrote in 2007 that:
“The Bush Doctrine is based on a realistic assessment of the challenge posed by radical Islam. It can best be summarised by a speech Bush gave on September 20th 2001: 'We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value execpt the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends – in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.'”
In 2009 Iraq was on the way to modernity:
“Arab, Islamic and totalitarian fascism's will only collapse if confronted and defeated militarily. Economic sanctions, cultural embargoes, and international restrictions on money flows, investments and exports will only serve in the end to solidify the regime's hold on Iran and its people. Moral relativity, inane speeches by the Prophet Obamed, and UN posturing will accomplish nothing. What will bring down the Iranian regime is uncompromising force and military buildup.
We saw the same with Iraq during the 1990s when the corrupt $1 Trillion UN Oil for Food scandal – the largest fraud in history – and its system of military and economic isolation actually abetted the Hussein regime and made it much easier to cast the Americans as the oppressors and originators of conflict and social disorder. It was only through war that the Hussein regime which had killed 1 million civilians in 20 years, was brought to an inglorious end. And it was only with US military strength that the remnants of Hussein's fascism, along with Iranian forces and Iranian trained terrorists, and Al Qaida were finally defeated.”
The UN will do nothing except involve itself when it can make money. There is no international 'concern' for Christians in Iraq, nor is there much appetite to protect Kurdish or Shia innocents. So in 2014, instead of a prospering Iraq, we now have a fractured country, partially ruled by Moslem fascist barbarians who delight in death and slaughter. Iran is now not only ennobled and embroiled in Iraq, they are 'partners' in stabilization. Instead of fomenting change in Iran, the largest terrorist financier in the world, we have just solidified their Koran-quoting, anti-semitic and soon-to-be-nuclear regime.
Obama and his Marxist theology, along with his pre-pubescent ignorant regime, has been a disaster for America and the world.
The Western media will cry and wail over piles of dead Shia, murdered by Muhammadan Fascists. And in the case of innocents and children so they should. Nary a tear however, is emitted over the multitudes of Christians who are killed, raped, tortured, beaten, and ostracized by Moslem Muhammadans by the same elitist group of tolerance and compassion.
25% or more of the Koran is a direct frontal attack against Christianity. It is hate-speech. The cult of Muhammad, premised on Hub'Al the Al-Lah [the Lord] of Mecca, is in the main a cult which opposes Judaism and Christianity. The historical reasons for his are here.
Of the 1500 verses of hate speech against Christianity we have the following:
1. Denial of the risen Christ and the Trinity [see, 1, 2, 3 for eg]
2. A belief that all Christians are criminal polytheists [see 1, 2, 3 for eg.]
3. Christians are evil, greedy, wayward, in league with Satan [see 1, 2, 3, for eg.]
4. Anyone who follows Christianity can be killed [see 1, 2, 3, for eg.]
5. Christians can be killed in this life since they are destined for hell-fire [see Sura 39 for eg.]
The Koran's supremacism clearly states that Christians are not the equals of Moslems – hence there is no golden rule within Islam. Worse, there is no free – will [see here]. Christianity teaches free-will, reason, the emancipation of women, the acceptance of 'others', charity, goodwill and respect to all. Islam negates every single aspect of the Christian program. [see Sura 4 for eg.]
Islam is the opposite of Christianity.
What Moslems don't know about the Koran.
-Its violence, racism and supremacism.
-The 1500 + verses of anti-Christian hate.
-The Sanaa Koran which contradicts the 4 versions [yes 4, with the 'main' Koran being the 'Cairo version'] of what is considered the modern Koran.
-1000 different Korans exist in recent discoveries in Yemen.
-Historical Korans indicate a massive amount of changes, additions, deletions and insertions ranging over 400 years.
But no worries. The moon deity of Mecca, Hub'Al, named the Lord or ilah, handed it down through the archangel Gabriel, to the mad fascist Muhammad.
Akin in his book 'Show me you are God', correctly attributes the premise of Hitler's National Socialist – Statist fascism, to evolution. Evolutionary dogma was popular, current, accepted and viewed as 'scientific' by 1900 in Germany. Hitler did not invent this dialectical naturalism, nor promote it. Darwinian science-fiction was already accepted by the elite, the university system, the media and most of the masses as a simple, irreducible, natural and obvious 'fact'. Part of Nazi theology was to use this world-view, to promote the 'natural' rise of Hitlerism as not only necessary to 'save' Germany, but dialectically inevitable. The superior German-Aryan race was simply ennobling and furthering evolutionary 'science' and naturalistic 'progress'.
The British atheist historian Arthur Keith commented, ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ [Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.]
Even newspapers in 1945 had the common sense to acknowledge the evolutionary rationale of Hitler's fascist cult:
Hitler and EvolutionHere are some choice Hitler quotes supporting evolutionary science-fiction, racial 'progress' and natural 'law':
Blood mixture and the result drop in the racial level is the sole cause of the dying out of old cultures; for men do not perish as a result of lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is continued only in pure blood. All who are not of good race in this world are chaff.
Mein Kampf (1925-26), American Edition (1943), 296. In William Lawrence Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich(1990), 88.
Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.
In Adolf Hitler, Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, '14 October 1941'
Nature knows no political boundaries. She puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master's right on her favourite child, the strongest in courage and industry ... The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel.
Mein Kampf (1925-26), American Edition (1943), 134-5. In William Lawrence Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
In Adolf Hitler, Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, '14 October 1941'
Hitler the fascist was not only anti-Christian, he was an atheist-darwinian demon.
In the book 'Evolution's Fatal Fruit, How Darwin's tree of life brought death to millions' we have the following: “It was Darwin’s theory — carried to its logical conclusion — that led to the dead of some 11 million people at the hands of German Nazis. Hitler was a devout evolutionist. He instructed his troops in evolution and had them provided with books by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche.” (p. 8)
The main textbooks of the Nazi education system were drenched in evolutionary cant. Hitler was a fanatical anti-Christian and by 1942 had outlawed the Bible; taken over the Lutheran church, neutered and mangled the confessing Church; and was well on the way to murdering 5 million Catholics. All in the name of science and evolution.
Hitler was a Nordic-pagan supremacist, who hated Christianity and who quoted evolutionary science fiction as 'fact', and as a central part of the Nazi theocratic, or poli-cratic [political theocracy], program. The dialectical-evolutionary fascism of Mein Kampf, clearly lays out the illiterate, ignorant, and fatalistic dogma of National Socialism. Over 1/3 of Mein Kampf is an explosion of idiotic racism and rage against Jews including their sect the Christians. Hitlerism demands either the eradication of inferior genes and characteristics [the sick, the unfit, Jews, Slavs, Russians]; and the destruction of those who oppose the state and science, meaning evolution [Catholics].
Muhammad was a Meccan pagan supremacist, who believed that the Allah or Lord of Mecca, namely Hub'al, was the only 'god' to be worshipped. His dialectical fascism Mein Koran, clearly lays out a program of Jihad, war, eradication and submission of others to his cult. Central to his poli-cratic fascism was the belief that Jews and Christians have offended the one true Meccan god and must be either conquered and controlled by Moslems; or killed. Over 1500 verses of hate and supremacism against Jews, Christians and Pagan permeate Mein Koran.
ISIS and other fascist Moslem groups quote from the Koran. Muhammad's example, his injunctions and his Sharia-Law are quite clearly present in totalitarian Islam, evident in most mosques, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. In other words, there is no moderate Islam. Over a thousand Koranic verses exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Koran 47:4). I have catalogued this hate speech [see examples here, here and here].
Hatred of the 'other' is emphasized repeatedly. Jews and Christians are targeted for destruction by the Koran [see Christianophobia for example]. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).
and
Qur’an 4:91- “If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them.Against such you are given clear warrant.” [link to other anti-Christian hate speech]
Any Moslem who follows Mein Koran, is following his dear leader Muhammad. Nazism was in the main, a deification of Hitler. Certainly many Moslems do not follow Mein Koran in-toto, with a majority of Moslems being unfamiliar with the text either in its entirety, or in Arabic. The myth of the moderate Moslem is thus founded upon the ignorance of the average Moslem. This is akin to the myth that all the Germans were 'innocent' of Nazi crimes. Many might have gone along with the program for sundry reasons, but the majority were well acquainted with Nazi theology and where the cult of evolution and 'science' would lead to. In other words, there is no moderate follower of Nazism, Islam or any other fascism. At least not if they are aware of the true theology of the cult.
You are only a moderate Moslem if you don't follow the Koran, but are instead, guided by your own sense of good and bad, right and wrong. The god-imprinted code of morality, which resides in every human soul is opposed to Mein Koran. In other words, Mein Koran is the opposite of your god-given embedded sense of natural law and ethics. The same is true of Nazism.
Adolf Hitler: “But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” and
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”
Mein Koran: 2:193 And fight them [Jews, Christians, Pagans] until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
Read Mein Kampf. Then try to read Mein Koran. You will find – as I did – that Mein Kampf is better written and more lucid. It is also quite insane – as is Mein Koran. Over a third of Mein Koran is anti-Christian and anti-Jew hate speech. Mein Koran demonizes the 'other' as unworthy of Allah's [Lord Hub'al the Meccan moon deity] support. Mein Kampf demonizes the 'other' non-Aryan German as unworthy of evolutionary support. In both cult theologies, cult members are encouraged to kill, dominate, enslave, rape, and control those who reside outside of the cult; and who do not sustain the development of the cult.
Hitler's mad ravings fit in nicely with that of Mein Koran. For example, direct from Mein Kampf we have:
"When you tell a lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility......"
"The longer I lived in Vienna, the stronger became my hatred for the promiscuous swarm of foreign peoples which began to batten on that old nursery ground of German culture." (A reference to East Europeans)
"The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland with the ultimate idea of bastardising the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate."
"The Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end...spying on the unsuspicious German girl he plans to seduce.....he wants to contaminate her blood and remove her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew hates the white race and wants to lower its cultural level so that the Jews might dominate."
"We must eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area...... Some of this land can be obtained from Russia..... We must secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitled."
"(The state) must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world; and one highest honour : to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the nation." This would later develop into Hitler's idea of the Master Race.
For Hitler, Christianity's 'fetters' of morality and ethics was directly opposed to Nazism:
“A stronger generation will drive out the weaklings, because in its ultimate form the urge to live will again and again break the ridiculous fetters of a so-called 'humanity' of the individual, so that its place will be taken by the 'humanity' of Nature which destroys weakness in order to give its place to strength.” [Nature = evolution]
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science [read evolution]. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.”
Hitler the evolutionist, quite admired Islam, calling it a martial theology. He hated Christianity, calling it a Jew-import, and responsible for the de-Germanizing of the superior German-Aryan race, with its doctrine of love, tolerance, charity, and care for the poor. This is rather ironic since as a penniless beggar in Vienna from 1912-1914 he survived thanks to charity and food from a local monastery. In Hitler's world-view the weak – including himself one must assume in 1912- must die and everyone submit to the racially pure, evolution-supporting state. In Islam's world-view the non-Moslem must die, or at least submit to Islam with Judaism and Christianity superseded by the material revelation of Muhammadanism.
Free copy of Mein Kampf here.
Fascist Kenyan Moslems named 'Islamists', slaughter Christians [link]
I
suppose Pope Francis and the Vatican will be organizing more
inter-faith confabs with their Moslem 'brothers'. Christians
in their thousands flee terror in Iraq
Since 2003, 500.000 Christians have left Iraq or been killed. So much for Bush's 'crusade'.
As more Christians are ostracized, tortured and killed on a daily basis in Iraq and Syria this obviously confirms that Islam is peace and love. In reality ISIS and Islam in general, are continuing the Jihad and Moslem's 1400-year slaughter of Christians.
“...the monastery of Mar Behnam - dating back to the fourth century, one of the most important historical sites of Assyrian Christianity – is in the hands of militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant since yesterday, after taking control of Iraq's second city.”
“...Thousands of gunmen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have attacked Mosul in the past two days. They murdered adults and children. Hundreds of bodies have been left in the streets and in the homes, without any mercy. Even the Army and the regular forces have abandoned the city, along with the governor. From the mosques you hear the cry: “Allah Akhbar, long live the Islamic state”. Source
Western
Marxists and the liberal Catholic laity must revel in knowing that:
“Imagine if 35,000 Muslims had received threats and fled a city. The media coverage would be intense. The UN would issue resolutions. Obama and David Cameron would offer aid and contemplate military action. But when 35,000 Christians flee Mosul because of threats from Islamic jihadists, no one particularly cares. As long as no one committed any “Islamophobia,” all is well.”
Indeed. Christians persecuted, exiled, murdered, decapitated, slaughtered in their churches, with babies heads separated from their bodies. From the Western MSM and general populace a big Yawn. What is far more vital is appeasing Moslems and watching the diving competition at the World Cup. Surely if a Moslem state does well in said competition, that will only prove Islam's superiority. Who cares about stacks of dead Christians ? Light them up.
ISIS with Christian and Shia prisoners before they are murdered:
Dead Christians and Shia:
Nazi style executions in progress:
ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – is just following the Koran. Thanks to Obama and the US 'military' and 'State' department liberals, northern Syria and wide swathes of Iraq are now under the 'Arab spring' control of Moslem fascists. Nice work Obama.
ISIS has called for the death of Jews and Christians as per the Koran. Christian hate is just as prevalent in Mein Koran, as is the anti-semitic racism. Christians of course have been beheaded and crucified in both Syria and Iraq. The Western media apparently are ignorant of such atrocity. The mainstream media will likewise name ISIS a perversion of Islam, a freedom-fighting unit, or simply 'extremist'. It is none of these things. ISIS is the Muhammadan state par excellence, a true implementation of Mein Koran theology.
ISIS
Video Calls to "Break the Crosses and Destroy the Lineage of the
Grandsons of Monkeys" Link
ISIS Moslems slaughter donkeys to illustrate what they will do to Christians and Jews.
“Watching them slaughter the donkeys is like watching them slaughter human “infidels”—with all the triumphant theatrics. In one video, “Allahu Akbar!” is heard while a donkey is being decapitated. Jihadis habitually cry “Allahu Akbar” (Islam’ supremacist war-cry, which literally means Allah is “greater”) whenever striking down infidels—especially when ceremoniously beheading them.”
Koranimals, lauded by Marxist big-brains as a 'religion'. Lenin's useless idiots united.
As a cult Islam centralizes and ossifies. There is precious little 'diversity' within Islam present or past. If Moslems are faithful to the Koran there is the absolute despotic merger of church and state; a denial of free will and freedom; and a slavish devotion to Muhammadan text. Apparently 'total systems' do not create the dynamism necessary to propel society forward. A cursory reading of history makes that clear.
Medieval Christianity, which was in part [and only in part], an era of hardship, plague, incessant wars, exogenous threats from Moslems, Avars, Vikings and others and indeed Church corruption; was nonetheless, the only society in world history which divided church from the state [contrary to myth there was never a merger of church and state]; elevated reason, free-will and responsibility; and demanded progress and a better social order to protect the weak and dispossessed. Not one single iota of proof exists, that Islam for instance, past or present, developed any of the above pre-requisites for modernity. The gold-standard for academics cited as an 'advanced state' of Moslem-Christian rose-petal tossing inter-faith hugging is 12thcentury Sicily under Robert II – a Normanized, re-Christianized island, dead in the middle of trade routes. This Norman-premised 'utopia' lasted one generation and had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It was a Christian state, hence its success.
Plurality developed only in Medieval Europe after the dead-weight of the Roman empire, itself an obstruction to civilization, thankfully collapsed. With the disease of Rome now cured from the European body-politic, civilization could arise. What is striking about Medieval Christian Europe is the creative tensions induced by a dynamic society. This is real diversity. The diverse attitudes, skills, political preferences, ideas and networks of a society on the move. Not the diversity of skin-color, or last names that giggling post-modernists are so fond of.
Creative tensions in medieval society and politics led to innovation and development in every sphere of the political-economy. They also led to the rise of new religious orders and forms of spirituality, many good, some weird, but with many reforming, improving and sustaining society. Hospitals, hospices, welfare and indigent care were all medieval inventions. Even public schools developed during the time of Charlemagne, were becoming common. The idea of helping those in need, or educating your family, did not exist outside of certain Jewish strictures, until the ministry of Christ. Succor and education were two great gifts of Christianity. In this vein monastic orders which dominated education and literacy, were rampant appealing to both metaphysics and rationality. New ideas also emerged in popular religion for instance during the struggle between orthodox Christianity and numerous heresies found in the 13th century.
The plurality in tensions and beliefs gave rise to two important Medieval innovations. The first was political plurality which was essential to create wealth. In England, Holland, Italy and elsewhere, the state had to share power with the Church, guilds, barons and the burgeoning merchant-bourgeoisie. Autarchic despotism was impossible. There is ample evidence that people would simply leave an inhospitable state and move to a political unit promising more freedom, mobility and safety. Political fragmentation ensured competition. Monastic houses incorporated firms as early as the 10th century. Trade routes lengthened and became more complex. Wealth, so necessary for the development of higher living standards and the creation of productivity enhancing technology took off after the 9th century.
A second manifestation of tensions expressed in ideas and freedom is the creation of Universities. During the 12th and 13th centuries, universities were built in every major European city. These universities met the demand for education in the liberal arts, of which 7 were emphasized, namely: grammar, rhetoric, logic, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and music. Education in a variety of topics was deemed by the Medieval mind, to be a central feature of prosperity. Many universities had specialties with law the central focus at Bologna, medicine at Salerno, and theology and philosophy at Paris. Each university thus attracted 'experts' stimulated debate in their chosen specialty, and changed attitudes in the culture at large.
The university system in the 12th century developed what is commonly called 'Scholasticism', or systems of logic which incorporated some aspects of Greek and Roman thought with Christianity. Many medieval scholars such as Anselm of Canterbury, placed faith before reason. Others, such as Peter Abelard, put reason first. The great 13th-century Dominican philosopher Thomas Aquinas produced a brilliant synthesis of faith and reason. Other scholars mused over whether vernacular language could even adequately describe either faith or reason. By the time of Roger Bacon [d. 1294], the scientific method had been established along with many of the basics of higher math and science.
This ferment of the mind, elaborated upon by a vibrant and partially Church-funded university system had a broad societal impact. People's attitudes and minds were profoundly changed. Visionaries and reformers initiated powerful and profoundly spiritual orders such as the Cistercians, Franciscans, and Dominicans. Saint Francis of Assisi, imitating Christ, rejected the urban wealth of his family and fled civilization. The Franciscans were a beggar-order for men, and very quickly a similar order for women was incorporated – the Poor Clares. Christian Neoplatonism, a synthesis of Plato’s ideals and Christian mysticism held sway during the 12th and 13th centuries. Aristotle – who was mostly wrong – and his idea of the material being the only reality, was rejected. Bonaventure, a Franciscan who lived from 1221 to 1274, developed a mystical philosophy guiding Christians toward contemplation of the ideal realm of God.
In short, only in Medieval Christian Europe do we see the dynamic plurality in governance, markets, religion and society so necessary in the creation of the modern world.
In reading J.S. Conway's excellent compendium of the Nazi persecution of the Christian Church, [buy it on Amazon] it is revealing and disquieting to realize just how spasmodic, divided, and confused the German Church and its leadership, not to mention the laity, was in the face of the Nazi cult. The German Church in convulsions of cowardice and confusion, neutered its own theology, denied its own truth, corrupted its own faith, to accommodate Nazi theology, power, and political repression. Some brave bishops, priests and laity died opposing the Nazi cult of course but in general the Church though saving about 1 million Jews, and countless Catholics, was used and then brutalized by the Nazis.
It reminds me today of Islam. How many 'liberal', 'evolutionary-believing' Catholics, sunk and drowning in post-modern popular culture, believe that Islam is 'just the same' as the Church ? Islam, like Nazism, is the great destroyer of Christianity.
The Nazi's anti-Christian theology was obvious to any who bothered to live in reality. Bare-naked Darwinian evolutionary irrationality, the bloody racialism, the hatred of Jewish-Christian metaphysics, was apparent to anyone who had read the insanity of Mein Kampf, or who was paying attention to what the Nazis were saying by 1933. Hitler and the Nazis lied to the Church, pulled millions of Catholics into their nationalist-evolutionist-fascist cult of paganism, and then proceeded to eradicate the church and 5 million Catholics, replacing Christianity with the Reich Church. The bible was of course outlawed in 1942, but before then hundreds of thousands of dead Catholics and the repression of liturgy, statues, homilies, and any printed product had already been in train for almost 10 years.
Yet millions of German Catholics openly supported the Nazis [national renewal, hope etc.]; as related by Stackleburg in his book 'Hitler's Germany':
The Catholic leadership was terrified that the Nazis would marginalize the Church much as Bismarck attempted to do. The laity, infused with secularism, embraced Nazi racialism in their millions, trusting in Hitler and his goons to restore Germany's 'rightful position' in the club of nations; and to resurrect the glory of Bismarckian political adventurism.
Today the same sick spectacle is on display. Millions of Catholics openly parade around supporting another fascism – Islam – meming that the cult of Submission which has killed Christians every week for 1400 years in an unrelenting Jihad, is somehow 'misunderstood'. Read the Koran, only 1562 verses of anti-Christian hate-speech permeate Muhammad's manifesto to his own power. Muhammad the god, allied with the moon deity Hub'Al who is the Lord or Allah of the Meccans. The Koran negates Christ, Christian belief, female rights, free-will and free-expression. Islam is the polar opposite – like Nazism – of Christian belief.
The Vatican is openly to blame for this, along with sundry Bishops and Priests. The cant is always the same with Pope Francis or the local clergy. Moslems are 'brothers', fighting against 'unbelief', in an age of sickness embedded in the non-science of evolution, the immorality of atheism, or the cult of the state. Yeah I got it. But Islam is not your friend. It is supremacist, racist and intolerant. Pretending otherwise is not being a good Catholic, it is just being an ignorant person, much like those millions of Catholics and the clergy who hugged and kissed the Nazis.
Tyerman is a pretty good and reasonably stable medieval historian. Like Michael Wood the populist historian, Tyerman attempts to link history with real life; real people; real events. He doesn't indulge in the usual revisionist claptrap so beloved by academic trivia – at least not as much as some of his a-historical friends. In a chapter within a new book, 'The Medieval World' updated from its 2001 edition, he attempts to locate the Crusades in the time, place and space of the medieval world. It is not a bad attempt, but misses the main point.
The Crusades to recapture Jerusalem would never have occurred without Islam. It was the Moslem cult of Muhammad, whom Tyerman incorrectly states is not a god in Islam [Muhammad is most certainly a replacement for Christ and is linked throughout the Koran with Hub'Al the moon deity or Allah]; which devastated, raped, enslaved, butchered, eradicated and throttled Christianity from it birthplace to southern France, Moscow, Kyiv, Poland, and even Iceland. It took Christians 400 years to fight back. Ignoring the Moslem causation of the Crusades [7 in total]; is about as intelligent as stating that there is no causal force to motion within nature; or that a reaction occurred independently of a first action. It is bizarre and yet so depressingly common.
Tyerman's chapter in this book does not mention the Moslem Jihad once. Weird, but in an age of Orwellian language, fantasy as fact, and fiction as truth; it is unsurprising. Whilst some of his analysis is just and premised on some variety of empirical evidence, evading the topic of Islam and why the Crusades had to occur if civilization was to survive and the modern world to develop, is to put it mildly, stupid. But that is academia and trivia for you. The fetish today is that Islam, a bronze age barbarism which equates Muhammad with a moon idol 'god', and which has murdered some 150 millions in 1400 years of Jihad is 'good'. Christianity which created science, mathematics, technology, the agricultural and early industrial revolutions, universities, public schools and hospitals and a true moral-ethical code is 'bad'. Nice.
Shocking surprise. Only 14 out of the top 15 Christian-persecuting countries are Moslem. North Korea – an Atheist gulag – is the only obstacle to a Moslem sweep. The Western mainstream media of course, heralds this as 'proof', that Islam is peace, love, harmony and perforce that the cult of Muhammad created the modern world.....Phd academic 'science' to follow. [link]
Big brains, saturated in a-historical Marxist revisioning and multicultural love of Islam, loathe the Crusades. This should indicate to the informed and objective that they were not only necessary, but also existential reactions against the Moslem Jihad which had every intention of destroying European Medieval civilization. Such a prospect salivates the yawning orifice of those who loathe the Church, and by extension their own superior civilization.
There is little doubt that the Crusades saved Europe in many ways, taking the endless war between Moslem barbarism and Western civilization into once Christian lands. They clearly indicate a superior society able to send men thousands of miles, better-armed, better-fed, better-led, with a noticeable advantage in technology and science. They also freed up trade routes, until the Ottoman Moslems once again shuttered the Mediterranean forcing Western navigators to find alternative routes around Africa, and across the Atlantic, to the entrepots of the East.
The Crusades have many fascinating threads and by-lines, one of which is Queen Melisende. Queens were common in Medieval Europe and the chess piece of the same name was the most powerful in the Medieval-created game of modern chess. Not so in Islam. There is not one single female ruler anywhere, at any time, in any state ruled by the destruction named Submission.
Sharon Newman writes the history of this astonishing woman in 'Defending the City of God'. A review here in the WSJ states:
“When Baldwin II died in 1131, Melisende and her husband, a crusader-count named Fulk of Anjou, were jointly crowned. A dozen years later, after Fulk had died in a riding accident, Melisende had her second double coronation at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, this time beside her 13-year-old son, Baldwin III. As long as her son remained a minor, the queen would exercise sole rule by hereditary right. A Cistercian abbot advised her: "On you alone the whole burden of the kingdom will rest. You must set your hand to great things and, though a woman, you must act as a man."
Ms. Newman marshals evidence to show that Melisende proved equal to the task. "It was her ambition," wrote the 12th-century chronicler William of Tyre, "to emulate the magnificence of the greatest and noblest princes and to show herself in no wise inferior to them."
Melisende, was an active Queen, comparable to any monarch in scope and ambition that Medieval Europe would create. Hers was a tenuous legacy – a small strip of land surrounded by Moslems – defended by an incredibly small army of well-armed, well-trained Knights and a few thousand professional soldiers.
“Melisende began by reconstituting her battered city. She built vaulted bazaars (still visible today), completed the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and endowed the conversion of the Al-Aqsa mosque into a palace. In consolidating the Latin church in Jerusalem, she cannily cultivated relationships with eastern Christian communities, like the Armenians and Greek Orthodox. And she oversaw the development of the Hospitallers and Templars, religious-military orders that joined monastic ideals to knightly chivalry.
Traveling her kingdom—from Tyre (in current-day Lebanon) to Jaffa on the Mediterranean coast—she dispensed royal favors, issued charters and concluded treaties. And at a time when Byzantine, Islamic and European artistic traditions began to commingle, she made herself a patron of the arts. One example of her patronage is the exquisitely illuminated Melisende Psalter—itself a blend of eastern and western styles—created at her scriptorium and today housed in the British Museum.”
Even given the rampant Medieval misogyny, Melisende is proof that women could not only rule, but acquire wealth, power and status in Medieval Europe. How different it was in Islam. Then, as today, women are considered as cattle and chattel in Muhammad's cult, itself a creation by men for the pleasures of men. Not a single woman of importance can be identified by Moslems and their big-brain Western allies, from any Moslem state, at any point in history. Not a single one. An encyclopedia is needed to catalogue a list of notable females from Medieval Europe. Here is a short list of Medieval Queens for example;
The Nazis were the most anti-Christian pagan-racist-supremacist cult in history – after Islam. The Russian fascists named 'Communists' were not far behind. Anyone who believes that Hitler was a Christian, or that Darwinist-Evolutionary-Nazi dogma, which preached the exact opposite of Christianity, including, survival-of-the-fittest, racialism, species 'progression', might-makes-right, euthanasia, destruction of the weak, and war to weed out the 'unfit races' was either 'Western', or 'Christian; is in dire need of medication and psychiatric help. This would include Atheists, new-age Marxists, and anti-Christian bigots and science-fiction writers. 
+wrote,+Among+the+Sami,+both+men+&+women+take+part+in+hunting+&+fishing.+Winter+scene+from+Finnmark.+Three+sami+with+skis,+participating+in+the+hunt..jpg)