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.
The Crusades were one of the most important events in our history – and one of the most glorious. They saved civilisation. There is little doubt about this. Islam or Mohammedanism as it should be called [or the cult of Mohammed], is a militant barbarous paganism. Why wouldn't you fight it?
In the great wide world of Western 'intelligentsia' and popular-culture, the Crusades to the Holy Land are portrayed as the expressions of a 'Dark Age' society, full of Christ-loving rabble, malcontents, thieves, morons, and hair-shirt wearing tonsured hypocrites. Only an illiterate, barbarous society would launch attacks against the lands of Christ and engage in the violent racial extermination of peaceful, non-White and entirely sophisticated and nuanced Moslems. Or so we are told. The reality is of course the opposite. The Crusades from 1099 to roughly 1291, were actions which saved Europe and civilisation. There can be little serious doubt about that. The Moslems brought the idea of intolerant Holy War or Jihad, into the heart of Europe enslaving and killing literally millions of people in Italy, Spain, Southern France conquering even the southern cantons of Switzerland in their lust for booty, women, land and power.
Cleansing the spiritual and material world in the name of the thing Allah, meant the fusing of church and state and the development of a robust intolerance and program of racist-supremacism which was already firmly embedded in Islamic theology. Europe was richer, more educated and more sophisticated in all matters of the political-economy when the Moslems attacked it in the early 8th century. We know this from Arab sources and from the obvious fact that marauders don't plunder poverty stricken areas. Vikings plundered England for its wealth. Moslems pillaged Europe for its treasures, its women and its civilisation.
When true barbarians – the Moslems –attack what should you do? Turn the other cheek? Sell your possessions and imitate St. Francis? Hide? Organize an international conference and create 'legal' statutes of international approval for either self-defense or projected-warring? Or do you simply get on with the business of defending yourself, training your military, fortifying your towns, educating your populace about the need to fight back; and making war on the enemy, 'until they have had enough' to quote Churchill? Only a demented self-loathing personality would accept any but the last option. Yet many in our society will reject the obvious – even those Christians who if they knew any history whatsoever, should know better.
“However, history bears me out. Not a single significant voice was raised against the Byzantines when they fought Islamic conquests. There are no records of Christian pacifists in Egypt or Syria urging a Gandhi-style non-violent response to the advances of Muslim armies. The new, pre-emptive dhimmitude being urged on us by certain clerics is not the fruit of Christian orthodoxy but contemporary liberalism, which acts as a kind of civilizational AIDS, finding excuses to undermine and render impossible every healthy measure of self-defense. Just as a retro-virus infiltrates and corrupts the existing DNA of human cells, so liberalism twists the tenets of Christian humanism, the Western insistence on tolerance and equality, our decent instinct of respect for other's cultures and beliefs, and turns them into toxic heresies by negating the countervailing values that made these values viable.”
Christianity is not by its theological nature naturally pacific. Neither is it defeatist.
The Crusades in the end did fail of course. There was never enough money, unity, leadership skill, men or to use the in-vogue Marxism, 'neo colonial' purpose, to make them permanent. Their eventual failure makes the claim of 'colonialism' a lie. There were no population transfers from Europe to the East. Most Crusaders left immediately after their tour of duty was over. Few Europeans even considered leaving the relatively prosperity of 'Dark Age' Europe [a myth] to settle in a dusty, barren, hot place beset by Moslems. Of the 7 main Crusades outlined by most historians [though there were really 3 phases to the 'First' Crusade]; only 2 were military victories. The first under the Knights of France; and the Third 100 years later under Richard the Lionheart [portrayed by Hollywood in yet another pathetically bad movie 'Robin Hood', starring Russell Crowe, as a raving mad dog who did nothing else other than murder innocent Muslims and bankrupt his state].
This is factual nonsense to anyone who has studied the Crusades. Also an idiocy is the idea that Richard's foe Saladin – a man Richard defeated in battle many times, never losing – was a Victorian gentleman. Saladin like any Muslim medieval leader murdered and butchered his way to power, annihilated cities and villages, killed the innocent and killed prisoners. The only reason he did not eradicate the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1188 when he took the city, was because the Christians remaining in the city send an envoy to Saladin and plainly stated that all the Muslims remaining in Jerusalem would be killed unless Saladin guaranteed the Christians and Jews their freedom through ransom. The deal was made – and so was a lot of money for Saladin. Many thousands who could not be ransomed were shackled into slavery to work on Moslem projects including fortification building and agriculture. So much for the Hollywood myth that this man was the idealized saint. He was brutal self-interested murdering narcissist as any real history will show.
In any event the charges against the Crusades, perpetuated by the media and the base stupidity that is pop-culture, maintains that they were assaults by illiterate idiots, hungry, dirty and thirsting for land and gold is the precise opposite of what occurred. The Crusades were ruinously expensive, largely French and family-based in the supply of leaders and men, drawn almost exclusively from the elite with some exceptions; and extremely pious in their objective that the Holy Land was Christian land, and that the Moslem slaughter of Christians, pilgrims and the destruction of Christian holy places had to be avenged. Add to this the virulent Moslem destruction of Spain, the Moslem occupation of once Christian territory in Sicily and Spain; and the endless slave trading of Christians including their alliance with the Vikings in this regard; and the pillaging of the European littoral by Muslims, and the only surprise is the fact that it took 400 years for France and Catholic Europe to organize themselves and meet this threat.
The Crusades could only have emanated from a rich, confident and realistic culture, one which understood the existential threat posed by Mohammedanism and once which had first defeated the Moslem attempt to take all of Europe in 732 and 737 AD in France. The Christian King Charles Martel, victor against the Moslem infidel was as much of a true Crusader as Richard, Bohemond, or Phillip Augustus.
We should give thanks that these men existed. Men whose type cannot be found in today's Western world.
Seven Myths of the Crusade, is a scholarly book debunking the revisionist history in vogue since the days of Walter Scott. Revision history is a nice way of saying ignorant, mendacious, non factual history. Atheists and Protestants recast much of real history in their zeal to attack and demolish the Church. Portraying the Catholic crusades as part of the mythical 'Dark Ages' was of course, part of this general animus against pre-Protestant history [a civil war which killed hundreds of thousands, witch burnings, destruction of art, treasure and architecture, book burnings, no free will, abiogenesis etc.].
A review of the book is summarized here. Links to other myths about the Crusades are below the review.
As the editors make clear in their preface, Seven Myths of the Crusades is presented as an antidote to the "outpouring of exaggerations, misperceptions, errors, misrepresentations, and fabrications" that proliferate in popular discourse about the Crusades. In the course of seven chapters, each written by a specialist and supported by scholarly notes and fresh research, this short primer examines and exposes the many anachronisms around the Crusades.
Andrea, professor emeritus, University of Vermont, and Holt of Florida State College make their basic assumption clear from the outset stating that the notion that medieval people ... were 'just like us' and acted out of motives very much like our own ... has led to some basic misunderstandings of the crusades and the people involved in them.
While not all chapters are equally enlightening, the more useful ones deal with large and important themes including whether the Crusaders were motivated by proto-colonialist greed, irrational fanaticism, or sincere piety. Paul Crawford examines whether the First Crusade was an "unprovoked offense or overdue defense" against Islam while Mona Hamad and Edward Peters question whether modern-day Muslims actually still hold a grudge against the West because they have "a nine-hundred-year-long grievance."
Belloc, in his great book 'The Crusades' retells the dramatic Christian takeover of the Levant and Israel in poetic terms. How did a small group of devout men, fighting for their faith against the Moslem Jihad, sustain territorial coverage, 2500 miles from home, against overwhelming odds for 2 centuries? It is a spectacular and significant affair, and if the Christians had taken Damascus, it would have been permanent, meaning Islam would have been riven in two, never to unite and a Christian state based on Frankish power would have survived into the modern era.
Belloc: “The main affair of these twenty years [1099-1119] was....the capture of the seacoast, on a strip very long, narrow, and ill provided with communications, crushed, north of Acre, between the sea and high mountains. The conquest of this flat coast in so short a time would seem, if we look at the map and think of the place as Mohammedan territory, and of the Crusaders (after the repatriation of the main body) as a handful of aliens, inexplicable.”
The original Crusade ended up with about 30.000 men in front of Jerusalem in July 1099, the remnant of 100.000 who had left Constantinople. Man for man the Christians overwhelmed the Moslem. Small groups of Christians routinely slaughtered forces 5-15 times their size. They were bigger men, better fed, technologically more advanced, with superior weapons and tactics. The only victories the Moslems could seize were ones of either surprise [night attacks], or ambush [guides leading the Christians who did not have good maps, into a dead end ambush].
Islam was divided. The 'north' beyond Israel was Sunni Turk. The 'south' and 'west' were Fatimid Shiite. Importantly the cult of Muhammad was degenerating in the late 11 th century. Ghazali's Koranic interpretation that all science and philosophy had to be shut down [10th century] had already denuded Islam and its conquered peoples of any energy, intellectual vibrancy, and economic initiative that the Moslems had inherited, but did nothing to stimulate. Islam was dying by 1100.
Belloc: “...the Crusaders found Islam, in this particular region, at a low ebb in its cultural patriotism. Finally there was the large Christian population....”
Is the Levant, Syria and Israel, Christians were still the majority population by 1100. The lie that Christians converted en masse to Muhammad's cult is absurd. If they joined the cult of Mecca it was to avoid, taxes, rape, social degradation, or to move up within the reigning bureaucracy. Most people kept their Christian faith. Unlike today the medieval man and woman, was intelligent enough to know the different between a real faith, and a fascist fraud, which merges church and state, advocates misogyny, Jihad and violence; and which hates the 'other'.