Thursday, September 1, 2016

Christianity v. Islam and Crusading Strategy

"[Your conduct is] deplorable [and] to the great detriment of the cause of Jesus Christ."
-Papal Legate and Catholic Patriarch Gerold, to Emperor Frederick II of Germany, after Frederick II had funded and led the German army that drove all Muslims out of Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem in 1229 C.E.
Two years earlier, in 1227, Pope Gregory IX had excommunicated Frederick II for getting sick on a boat to the Middle East to drive the Semites out of Jerusalem. For comparison, Gregory IX's predecessors had lavished praise upon Philip II of France, an inbred monarch of more heavily catholicized territories west of Germany, who had abandoned Richard the Lionheart outside Acre during a difficult siege campaign.

Reconceptualize your understanding of the Crusades. We're seeing a lot of scholarship right now portraying itself as revisionist, and the Crusades as being about Christianity v. Islam. This "radical new theory" is a regurgitation of the crappy theory that inbred popes, nobles, and monarchs used to feed their subjects--it's not a radically new theory, nor is it old-fashioned and inceptuously traditional; rather, it's a middle years theory which represents neither original occurrences and motivations nor current desires to reconnect with tradition.

The now-traditional "bad" narrative of the crusades, still popular in occupation pedagogy, is that crazy Christians tried to attack Muslims over special soil. This is erroneous and nonsensical as an explanation, but it feels good to argue it, given rapefugees and Sarah Ratface Silverman and whatever the next Allahu Akbar turns out to be. It stands in contrast to the last iteration of the bullshit narrative, which now--after rapefugees and Allahu Akbars and so forth--seems almost attractive. That last iteration is, "Crazy Muslims tried to overrun Europe and only heroic Christians could stop them." Again, seems appealing, in an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" way, but it doesn't actually work out.

Think of how international news media tried to frame the struggle for Irish independence in terms of "Protestants v. Catholics," as though all the killing was based upon religious tenets rather than being starved and enslaved by the inbred English royals. The religious tenets played their part as fetishes, rallying points, vessels for shared experience, et cetera, but the battle wasn't actually about transubstantiation, but blood and soil and foreign control, which is why each side was fine with wholly and explicitly violating the dogma of what they were supposedly fighting for if it proved effective during wartime, and why agnostics and pagans and Sunday-only Christians didn't sit out.

That type of lie has been used since the Crusades in order to similarly reframe what happened. Whether it was frothing Muslims trying to conquer Christendom or frothing Christians trying to conquer the Caliphate, though, either version was a knowing lie. The conflict was actually racial, a race war fought between Europeoids and Semites, and reframing it in terms of religion is used to confuse the issue. Yes, it's a damned dirty lie that it was about frothing Christians trying to aggressively conquer the Middle East out of greed, but it's also a damned dirty lie, an even filthier lie, that the Catholic Church and the other inbred monarchs/nobles who spurred the crusades were unifying Europe against a foreign invasion. As regards both arguments, consider:

1) Crusaders routinely ignored their retroactively-attributed historical "leaders" and slaughtered Semites at home rather than traipsing to the Middle East to attack/defend Jerusalem;

2) Crusaders regularly besieged Christian towns and cities in Europe or Asia and turned back before reaching the Middle East, which historians retroactively call "failures";

3) Crusaders regularly robbed, looted, raped, and slaughtered Christian populations in Europe and Asia, then resettled those areas;

4) Crusaders went on and off crusade regardless of what the papacy or its assorted inbred nobles were saying about crusading, seemingly unaffected by the larger strategic or ecclesiastical goals retroactively applied by historians to any given crusade;

5) Crusaders stopped frequently to engage in many (or all) of the seven deadly sins, feasting and whoring and looting in conquered territories;

6) Crusading "leaders" frequently tried to urge crusader armies to hold back and give Muslim forces time to regroup, sometimes with success, sometimes with the crusading soldiers marching on anyway and forcing confrontations;

7) Crusading "leaders" regularly negotiated with Semite ("Muslim") leaders for various peaceful settlements, but kept it secret from their soldiers for fear of accusations of treachery.

Regarding the "Muslims," all of the above apply, too. Semites spent as much time fighting and killing other "Muslims" as they did Europeans ("Christians"), and frequently lost or fled from battles with Europeans because they were busy elsewhere killing the "Christian" inhabitants of a particular town or territory.

Historians of the middle era, and Crusade-era traitor-historians, have long focused on the holiness of jihad or crusade as some kind of motivating factor, while today's useful idiot historians have begun to "counter" these arguments by suggesting the papacy's (and/or nobility's) heroic defense of Christianity and/or Europe against the Muslims.

Posit an entirely different take on the Crusades, though, one in which the 10th-13th century papacy and nobility (Innocent and Hugh and Philip, say) were using the Crusades, and the idea of crusading, not to defend Europe, but to focus attention away from a very real attempt to invade and seize territory and assets, similarly to the way that the 21st century papacy and nobility (Francis and Soros and Merkel, say) are now using the idea of humanitarian religion to focus attention away from an attempt to invade and seize territory and assets. (You can still keep your image of frothing Muslims--imagine the inbred noble caliphs and emirs playing Arabic Semites to a similar tune in their own lands, encouraging them to abandon the vast riches of the Nile Delta and the southern Mediterranean coast and waste their lives in Jerusalem while someone else handles Cairo and Damascus for them.)

This theory answers a number of pressing "questions" about the Crusades that, since our subjection to Jenomic occupation, have been written up to "the will of God" or "the conflicting intersectional motivations of historical figures" or some other bullshit holding the lie together. Consider:

Why did crusader armies frequently defy the Catholic Church, and their own inbred noble leaders, and attack Christian Byzantium and Constantinople, rather than moving themselves tidily beyond it and getting engaged in the Middle East, thereby leaving Europe open to attack?

Why did jihadi armies frequently defy the highest Islamic scholars, accuse them of infidelity and self-interest, and fight at home instead of marching far, far away to Aleppo, leaving their farms and wives behind in the trusted care of the imams' families?

Why did crusader and/or jihadi armies not come when the pope or caliph called, not come when many wealthy and powerful nobles called, but come at seemingly random points of history which court historians attribute to an "inexplicable religious mania"?

Why did the very few nobles who really got firsthand into battle in crusading--such as the Lionheart or Saladin--frequently find that, while they were away in the "Holy Land," their supposed religious allies were scheming back home in the Nile or England to take their possessions, without censure or reproach from religious leaders? If crusaders were in any tiny way actually motivated by saving their souls or being good Christians, why did they do so much raping and boozing, quit so often, battle where some pope told them not to battle, or try to hold Aleppo and build up fortifications and farms instead of abandoning the coast and getting lost outside Jerusalem's walls?

(And for the latest set of anti-Islam revisionists, who think they're resisting falsification of the record: if the battle was truly about Islam and Muhammad, and not about Semites, what drove blonds and redheads out of Egypt, and what was Thermopylae all about? Islam was only a tool the merchants used to take better control of Arabia, like any other mysteriously gentile-inclusive addenda to the Pentateuch.)

The only logical answer, the Occam's Razor of the Crusades, is that the installation of the papacy in Europe, and its increasingly vainglorious and self-important attempts to lure the Europeoid "Christians" of Europe to get caught up in extended land wars in Asia, were carried out so that the Semitic "Christians" of Europe could take Europe during the distraction. That's why crusades so often began with spontaneous street battles between Semitic sheriffs and tax-farmers and Europeoid field-workers, and why the men of Europe did not strategize the way the papacy kept wanting them to. The battle was between Semites and Europeoids, not Christians and Muslims, and the Europeoids were not on the Catholic Church's side. Official Crusade history is bursting with attempts by pope after pope to goad the people of Europe into war, through tax or threat or promise or intermediary, and the people spending 99% of the time completely ignoring the popes, but popes then being ascribed credit for the next race war that happens, simply because a stopped clock is right twice a day. Twentieth century western university historians have written book after book trying to explain why centuries of regular papal commands "reached very few, if any," and why a tiny scattering of such commands happened to occur within months of a Europeoid mobilization. These attempts to make the Catholic Church responsible for Europe's defense are as pitiful and as erroneous as those of postracial historians to claim that Tesla stole all his ideas from someone's black chambermaid, or that Edison's girlfriend was the actual inventor of the telephone.

The Arabic Semites were not their own masterminds either, being reluctantly threatened into war by lying "emirs" and "viziers" who were constantly torturing and beating them to keep them marching into another starving campaign. What a load of shit that "religious feeling" motivated a giant race war over very tangible lives and resources.

Once Jewish-Christianity hit Europe, there were hundreds of years of wars and massacres of the people there, and the many warrior villages were made subject to inbred kings, but the people were still Europeans, and though the land was being tax-farmed rigorously by Catholic fronts and Semite contractors, it was still Europe. And once Allah was deployed in Arabia, there were indeed hundreds of years of wars and massacres of the people there, and then on toward Europe, and European armies did manage to throw back the hordes--but this had nothing to do with the boy-rapists in Rome, in fact, Europe was defended in spite of the attempts of the papacy to get all of Europe's fighting-age men to tie themselves up in Jerusalem while hordes of Arabic "Christians" in Byzantium advanced north. Russia was constantly under siege from the Semitics in the south, losing dozens of millions of its people over the centuries to incessant attacks, but unlike Europe it never suffered the full depredations of the Catholic Church, which was constantly trying to empty Europe's young male population and entangle it inland in Jerusalem so that Europe would be easier to take via Byzantium and the Mediterranean.

Today's crusades unfold almost identically to yesteryear's. The battle between Semites and Europeoids; the false attribution of "unexplained religious mania" to people who are fighting to the death for their genetic kin; the collaboration of old-line Anglo-inbreds who've been serving evil for more than a thousand years (Harry, William, Hillary, and Dubya all trace their lineage to the British nobility of old); the use of poor Arabs and Africans as expendable shock troops by wealthy Jews who are as comfortable sending black rapists into German swimming pools as they are ordering Iowa farmboys to demolish a block of Arab children: all the same as before. During what we now call "the Crusades," if the Europeoids had listened to the popes and the popes' coterie of inbred royals, their lands would have been impoverished paying for pointless wars in the Middle East, their sons would have died stopping threats created by the very people who had promised to save them, and the popes and their disgusting expired gene-pool throwback politicians would've imported cheap labor to fill up the spaces left behind.

1 comment:

  1. Crusaders - mercenaries, people inclined toward war/weapons left adrift in peaceful times, needing a way to ply their blades, garrottes, firearms, poisons, and contrived accidents toward some form of that money thing. For King & Country, for God & Country, for God & Man -- same rallying purpose even if the words change and the uniforms look different & sometimes aren't even uniforms at all.

    The warrior caste is a distinct segment of humanity that modern "scientists" couldn't be bothered to understand because you can't fake-understand it with quantifiable lab results in a regimented test protocol. This paradigm problem will make it seem even more false a construct - Warrior temperament, needing a Warrior caste outlet, that is - until "scientists" regain touch with scientific principles, rather than monetary or status principles. Not in a pollyanna, gee it sure would be keen if Nirvana were upon us right now sort of way. Just an adjustment. Not quite a goosing of the margins, more toward keep the idea where it works/-ed, reimagine it where it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete