Thursday, February 12, 2015

Obama, the Anti-Crusader Rabbit

It has been pointed out many times by many people that Obama's reference to the Crusades (and the Inquisition, and slavery, etc.) was typical liberal illogic. It is his mission, of course, to wipe out Western Civilization, and what better way to do that than to urge White Christians, the bedrock of said civilization, to wallow in guilt about real and imaginary sins from centuries ago?

I'm pretty long in the tooth, but even back when I was a kid in the 50's, the Cultural Marxist/Politically Correct party line was being established before it had been given a name. To be fair, some of the reasons for it were valid as far as they went. The Western sense of fair play led us to try to be objective about, and appreciate the 'other' — the nonWestern, the nonWhite, the nonChristian. A good impulse as far as it went. But those who hate the West harnessed and perverted that benign tendency and made it into ethno-masochism, which teaches us to hate ourselves and love the 'other' whatever the merits. This has become 'multiculturalism,' which maintains the equal value of all cultures, from Renaissance Italy to headhunters in New Guinea.

But a true objectivism always comes to the same conclusion: No matter the merits and accomplishments of the rest of the world, Western Civilization, an artifact of the European people, is light years ahead of any other culture, past or present, that the world has ever seen. For Obama to imply otherwise is just the hate-whitey ideology he's been marinating in his whole trivial life.

This is from

The Horse is Too Damned High

[Plz to be enjoying the first article submission from frequent commenter RAIDEN! -7th Son]

Rather than stand up for Western civilization, the social-signaler-in-chief recently saw fit to equate the barbarism of ISIL to the Crusades and the Inquisition. At the National Prayer Breakfast, presumably filled with Christians, Obama *so bravely* lectured them, “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades…people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” In other words, “muh moral equivalency”. For someone who cultivates the image of an academic, the so-called professor has evidently never read a book on the subject.

The Crusades were primarily defensive, not offensive in nature. The aggressors, then, as it is now, were the warriors of Islam. Let’s review our history, shall we? Shortly after the Pedo –er, Prophet Mohammed’s death in 632, Islam began rapidly expanding its territory through military conquest of formerly Christian lands. The first lands to fall were (what are now) Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. In the year 711, Muslims from North Africa invaded Hispania, now modern day Spain and Portugal. The conquest was rapid, destroying the then-reigning Visigoths, with the remainder of the population being quickly subjugated. By 718, only a small enclave of Christians remained in the mountainous northern-most tip, the province of Asturias, which would be used as the launching pad for the Reconquista. By the way, ever wonder why the proposed Ground Zero Mosque – the one that was supposed to promote “understanding” between cultures- was originally named “Cordoba House”? The name was a reference to the Grand Mosque of Cordoba, which was originally a Christian cathedral that had been converted into a mosque, standard practice under Islam to demonstrate dominance over subjugated peoples. Guess who defended that mosque too? It would take the next seven-hundred years before the Muslims were completely pushed out of Spain and Portugal, and it was partly due to the Crusades that today they are Christian instead of Muslim (although in Spain that may be changing).

In 732, Muslims invaded what is now Southern France. Had they not been stopped at the Battle of Tours by based Charles Martel, some historians believe the whole of the European continent could have come under Islamic control. In 740, Muslim fleets invaded Sicily, which became the emirate of Sicily in 830. Sicily would remain under Muslim rule until 1091, when the last pocket of Muslim resistance on the island of Malta was defeated by Norman mercenaries. By the 11th century, Islam had swept the Middle East, all of North Africa, parts of the Mediterranean (Southern Italy and Cyprus) the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and the Balkans. These were vast swaths of formerly Christian territory, under which the inhabitants had to now live as humiliated dhimmis (and doesn’t include conquests of non-Christian territories of places such as Persia and parts of India).

One might ask at this point what Christendom was doing during this time to counter the Islamic threat. The answer is – not much. Despite five hundred years of attacks and losing vast swaths of territory, western Christianity’s response, centered in the Vatican, to these attacks on its flock was mostly indifferent. That all changed with a letter from the Emperor Alexius Comemnus I of Byzantium to the Vatican in 1095, seeking assistance against Muslim armies that were now threatening Constantinople, the heart of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Despite the recent schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, Pope Urban II felt compelled to send aid, both for reasons of a feeling of brotherhood between fellow Christians and a desire to retake The Holy Land. While the overall record of the Crusades is mixed, the First Crusade was an overwhelming success, with some of the Crusading knights staying behind to establish the independent Kingdom of Jerusalem, as well as other outposts in the area (the necessity of defending which would eventually lead to the creation of the Knights Templar).

So as you can see, the conventional view of the Crusades as simply white Europeans picking on those poor Arab Muslims who dindunuffin is simply false. The Crusades were defensive in nature, the first one being launched only after five hundred years of nearly non-stop Muslim attacks. Nor were they colonial adventures motivated the desire for wealth and land. Most of the Crusaders who went were actually land-owning nobles fromwealthy families. They acted out of genuine religious belief and a sense of needing to make amends for allowing so many fellow Christians to be slaughtered at the hands of Islamic conquerors or fall into humiliating dhimmi status, sincerely believing in the sentiment expressed in Pope Innocent III’s letter to the Knights Templar during the Fourth Crusade “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

In this Post Modern age, when cynicism has become equated with wisdom, it has become fashionable to uncritically repeat the silly meme that the Islamic world somehow actually has a legitimate grievance against us, and that perhaps we are no better than they are. The fact that the Commander-in-Chief would spout off such sentiments, and that so many people would nod their heads in agreement, only goes to illustrate the extent to which pernicious myths which have served to undermine belief in our own civilization. When Muslims are willing to kill and die for their beliefs, and we are only willing to die for ours, then we will simply die. It is important to know the true history of the Crusades, both to counter pernicious leftist memes that serve to undermine confidence in ourselves, but also to look back on a time when the West did have confidence. In the comfort of our 21st Century lives filled with the latest niggertech to keep us happy, an age where even our poor people are overweight, many of us have grown complacent. We can no longer conceive of a time when our people were threatened, and so many don’t feel any attachment to Western institutions like Christianity. And yet the West has not always been so secure, and we would do well to remember that it was not rationalist-skeptics but fanatics that answered the call it in its hour of need.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Hinagiku, who shows up in these quibcags a lot, from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!). The quote, of course, is from Glaivester's blog here:

1 comment:

  1. better yet, juxtapose the holocaust with nazi propaganda against jews, tell people "see, the jewish people weren't all innocent either. did you know that they were responsible for the black death?"

    that would be about on the same level as equivocating the crusades with jihad.