How Long Before the Dark Ages Return? (Part 3)

Below is the third and final installment in a series of essays on the fall of Rome by our Dutch correspondent H. Numan. Previously: Part 1, Part 2.

How Long Before the Dark Ages Return?
Part 3

by H. Numan

In the first two essays I showed the similarities between our problems today and Rome’s problems in the past. One of them was multiculturalism. Rome was a truly multicultural society. It didn’t matter where you came from. As long as you behaved Roman, it was good enough. That went wrong disastrously during the final 75 years of the empire. Another problem was inflation and lack of money. We face exactly the opposite: deflation. Rome couldn’t afford to pay for its defense anymore, we simply don’t want to.

Caveat lector: devout Christians may want to ignore the following section. Some American Christians seem to me to be exceptionally sensitive here. Almost as sensitive as another religion… if it doesn’t agree with their perceptions.

One issue I haven’t discussed is religion. Until the middle of the 2nd century Rome was polytheistic. The more gods, the merrier! They had no problem at all in accepting different gods into their pantheon, and often did. History shows that when societies intellectually develop they need fewer gods. You start of with a multitude of gods and deities, each with a specific task. Those many ‘little’ gods merge into fewer but more powerful gods, supervised by a supreme god. And finally in monotheism those gods are merged into or superseded by a single supreme deity.

Christianity wasn’t the only monotheistic religion coming on the scene. There were many more, for example the Isis religion from Egypt, the Cybele cult from Asia Minor (Anatolia, Turkey) and the Mithras religion from Persia. The advent of Christianity wasn’t certain at all. Mithras was a far more likely candidate, but eventually Christianity became the dominant religion in the empire, and within Christianity the orthodox version of it. This would later evolve into the Roman Catholic church.

Most monotheistic religions claim they are immutable, and have universal rules that never change. At best (or worst) this only applies to mohammedanism. Definitely not to Christianity, and that is a compliment! Without those changes we wouldn’t be where we are today. Very early Christians wouldn’t recognize Christianity as the Roman state religion. Late Roman Christians wouldn’t recognize their religion in Renaissance times. All of them would be aghast how it has developed today. For example, the current pope would have been burned at the stake for his preaching in medieval times. When that went out of fashion, he’d be murdered. Until about 25 years ago excommunicated. Today he is the head of the Roman Catholic church, preaching the gospel according to Marx. People lap it up as if it were honey.

Monotheistic religions in general haven’t much interest in science or freedom of speech. For example, it isn’t that long ago that Roman Catholics weren’t supposed to the read the bible. The catechism, yes. But the bible? Not really. The church allowed it only after WW2. Not being allowed to read the bible was one of the main reasons for the protestant reformation in the 16th century, a thousand years after the fall of Rome.

Now we return to where we left off. You know now it takes about three generations for knowledge to completely disappear. That is not 3 x 25 years, but at best 3 x 15 years. That ‘best’ is only under peacetime conditions, and those do not apply today. Under aggravated circumstances (such as war, civil war or serious disasters) those periods are much shorter. Five to ten years for a generation is a good estimate. For example, the generation right before WW2 had a very different outlook on the world than the generation directly following them. When left-wing appeasers point out that our problems are at least three generations in the future, that is technically true but very different from reality. Instead of 3 x 25 years = 75 years away as they infer, we’re looking at possibly 10-15 years in the future. That is not when the process begins, but when it ends. In 15 years, in 2035, the dark ages aren’t going to begin slowly. That’s what is happening right now. In 2035, the process will be completed. And that is the latest date I think possible. Don’t be surprised if it happens within a couple of years.

There is a huge difference between the barbarians in Roman times and ours. In Roman times they very much looked up to Roman civilization, and merely wanted a piece of the pie. As much as possible of course, but not all of it. Our barbarians don’t look up admiringly. They despise and hate us. They don’t want a piece of the pie, they want it all. In both cases they have the necessary force to back up their demands. The Roman barbarians were effectively the army itself. The current barbarians also have military force: first of all their ‘angry young men’ that terrorize our society. Angry young men can be as young as 6 years old. We can see on the telly 6-year-olds doing beheadings in Syria. Raping and armed robberies are committed daily by +12-year-old mohammedan boys in Europe. Egged on by their community, and tolerated by our authorities. They are fully supported by their own religion and of course there is mohammedan terrorism world wide.

Back then the church wasn’t really interested in preserving scientific knowledge and wisdom. That happened by accident. One place was Ireland, which was in those days further away than the dark side of the moon. The other place was Constantinople, which couldn’t be taken in war. When the Western Roman empire fell, the light went out. If you knew the Lord’s prayer and the catechism, that was enough. Reading and writing weren’t important anymore.

It took a thousand years before the light slowly went on again. Most of the lost knowledge had to be rediscovered or invented again. Concrete, for example. Romans invented it, and used it extensively in very large building projects. Very quickly after the fall of Rome that knowledge was lost. Not immediately, but simply because the demand for it disappeared. Architects and engineers of the first generation of course knew how to make it. But without demand for it, it was useless knowledge to pass on to the next generation. Most of the next generation of architects and engineers who did learn how to make concrete didn’t use it either. So there wasn’t much need to pass that knowledge on. The knowledge how make concrete was completely lost after the third generation. It remained lost for 1200 years. Modern concrete was only reinvented around the 1850s. That is about 150 years ago. Can you imagine what 1200 years of development for something as simple as concrete would mean today?

The fall in knowledge was phenomenal. What wasn’t strictly necessary for staying alive disappeared. Knowledge became a luxury. Reading and writing are great, but staying alive takes priority.

I focused in my essays about the similarities between the fall of Rome and the coming fall of Europe. Yes, the Roman elites made a deal with the barbarians. Out of sheer necessity, because they hadn’t another choice. The number of outright Roman traitors was minimal. The very idea that a Roman would or could collaborate with barbarians was for Romans preposterous. Not so for us. Our elites work as much as they dare to support and promote our barbarians.

Barbarians in Roman times looked up to Rome, and what it stood for. They wanted to become Romans themselves. They even took over the religion. Most Germanic tribes converted to Christianity, and the ‘correct’ version of it: Roman Catholicism. Not all, though. For example the Visigoths in Spain had converted to the ‘wrong’ version. They became Arians and didn’t convert to Catholicism. This had later on disastrous consequences. The lightning conquest by the Moors of Spain was a direct result.

The original population remained Roman Catholic, while their Visigoth overlord remained Arian. There wasn’t much social interaction between the two groups. The Visigothic elite ruled as conquerors, and the Iberian population felt oppressed. When the Visigothic elite began murdering each other in a real game of thrones the disaster happened. Mohammedans lead by Tariq saw an opportunity and grabbed it in 711 AD. Within one year flat they conquered most of Spain and Portugal. Very much assisted by the Visigothic elite who used them to murder the other half. The local population didn’t give a hoot who oppressed them. Being oppressed by Visigothic Arians or mohammedans, who cares? If anything, the rule of the mohammedans was less oppressive. Certainly during the first few decades. (That’s when the Al Andalus myth began.)

The Reconquista took 700 years. We aren’t done yet. The last mohammedans were kicked out of Spain in 1492 AD. That is definitely not the end of the story, because right now mohammedans are reclaiming their Spanish possessions. Once mohammedan, for ever mohammedan. They regularly lay claim to churches that once upon a time were mosques. Especially the cathedral of Cordoba is regularly targeted in demonstrations to demand back their ancient mosque, now a cathedral.

It is not mutual though. No mohammedan even dreams of ever giving back the Dome of the Rock in Israel, or the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, now Istanbul. Far from it. Erdogan almost certainly will have that (now) museum reopen as a mosque pretty soon. I’m willing to bet that within a maximum of five years the Hagia Sophia is a mosque again.

Back to the beginning of the Dark Ages: it didn’t matter too much for the common man. His life was very harsh anyway. Religion wasn’t really an issue; only in Spain, and to a limited extent. Their barbarians were Christians as well. Ours aren’t, and that is a huge difference. Roman law slowly deteriorated into Germanic law. But that didn’t affect the common man too much either. Both forms of law were pretty harsh as the were. If anything, Germanic law was easier to apply and understand. Our law is firmly based on Roman law* — which we had to reinvent to a very large degree — and differs vastly from shariah law. Shariah law is an extremely crude and biased form of tribal law. Think Nuremberg laws, but much, much worse. The Nuremberg laws probably were based or at least influenced by shariah law, as far as the Nazis dared to go.

Germanic barbarians merged into and with the original Roman population. After another couple of generations the two were indistinguishable from each other. The parts on the border of the old Roman empire were more Germanic, those closer to Rome more Latin. Of course it wasn’t a painless process, but as painless as the times allowed for.

We don’t have that luxury. If luxury is the right word here… Mohammedans want to take over the world. They very clearly state that. Hitler could have been stopped if people actually had read Mein Kampf, and (much more difficult) decided to do something about it. Mohammedans are much more open about what they want. In a nutshell: lie on pillows, be waited on by Western slaves (you and I), who will do all the necessary work. As slaves. Not as dhimmis, not as second-rate citizens, but as real slaves. They have tried it many times in the past, this is just another attempt. So far, the most dangerous one.

The big difference between Christianity and mohammedanism is logic. Ask a Christian if their god can make a square circle or lift himself by his own breeches. Of course not, the reply will be. The laws of logic apply to God as well. A mohammedan will answer you very differently. He will say, of course he can. If he wants to he can do anything. Including squaring circles and lifting himself by his breeches. After that answer he will immediately cut your throat you for your horrendous blasphemy. Logic is what very slowly made the dark ages go away, and build the Christian religions into what they are today. This will never happen in the mohammedan world. Debate was never possible, will never be possible and simply cannot ever happen in that religion.

How far are we into the period of three generations? Awfully far. Go back to my earliest articles I wrote for Gates of Vienna. Read the first year of post of the Gates. Weep. We are that far. What was unthinkable less than ten years ago is now almost allowed. For example, rape. A daily occurrence in Western countries. Child marriages. Not debatable less than five years ago. Today mohammedan ‘refugees’ legally claim their 9-year-old wives, to be transported at the expense of Western governments to their place of refuge. Once those children (‘wives’) are here, they get full support as legal wives. Many mohammedans, refugees and earlier mohammedan colonists as well openly claim four wives and get away with polygamy. They get benefits for having four wives. Doesn’t apply to you though, so don’t convert to Mormonism.

We are that far on the way to our dark ages.

— H. Numan

*   Note from the Baron: British law is Anglo-Saxon in origin, established as English Common Law. The same is true for the USA, Canada, Australia, and other former British colonies. The legal system in most of continental Europe is derived from Roman Law.

79 thoughts on “How Long Before the Dark Ages Return? (Part 3)

  1. ” The Dark Ages return.” ?

    There have been no Ages darker that The Age of utter pitch dark benightedness that started with inviting jihadis 40 years ago. In the Middle Ages, sometimes called Dark Ages, people had a very sublime goal: inherit Paradise that Yeshwa gave us A GLIMPSE OF. Not a bad idea when people then tried to discipline themselves by themselves, and tried to be pure of heart as much as they could.

    Today misnamed ANTIFA want to destroy own nations. Lefties are kind to jihadis but harsh on their native compatriots. Traitors and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions supporters are called compassionate and progressive.

    Left right centre , left of centre and just child play toys to distract voters’ attention from real issues.

    No matter what so-called system of government: decisions must be based on reason, logic, and wisdom gained from the past events and people and jihadis’ actions. Observe and decide.

    • Murad, at last I can express my profound gratitude to you for a link you provided in April 2015 anent the discussion of The Baron and Dymphna’s (Western) Easter posting of the Bach “Easter Oratorio.” You linked to the Monks of Valaam singing “Agni Parthene” (albeit in Slavonic). I listened to them for 1.5 hours, hitting the Replay button. That evening I attended Great and Holy Friday services at a local Russ. Orthodox church (the nearest Orth. church to my home).

      One thing led to another, and I am now an Orthodox Christian. Because of your link.

      Cast bread upon the waters; you know not how far it may travel.

  2. Excellent essay, albeit its deep pessimism is so sad. The logic of the current trends seems to be unassailable; what the author foresees will mostl likely happen.

    Yet – we must not succumb to defaitism and ponder alternatives. Are there any at all?

    • One alternative – mathematically certain – which I keep mentioning and which is simply ignored by everyone but China and the UN is the coming global demographic implosion, due circa 2040-50. Islam’s hordes will be equally affected.

      The book by Sir Gregory Copley, permanently on our sidebar, tells the tale. People who read his book get impatient because he offers no solutions. But he can’t, because the size of the implosion makes the future after it unknowable. Never before has the world experienced such a level of decline that won’t be due to war, pestilence, famine, etc.

      China has nullified its one child law and is desperately trying to get its people to have more children. But people won’t do that in a place where it doesn’t feel safe or prudent to do so. Back when we had large, intact families, having children made cultural sense. It doesn’t anymore; the world’s socialist cultures cannot support the level of largesse they have promised till the end of time.

      Sir Gregory does suggest that urban areas begin to make friends with the rural areas that feed them. It’s a start.

      • True, and that is the main reason why China missed the boat of becoming a world power for the coming 40 years. Pensioners on crutches make bad soldiers.

        Demographically mohammedans should adopt the bunny as their emblem. Population growth there goes through the roof. Which will necessitate political expansion for them. All those unemployable young men must do _something_ …

  3. I cannot help but feel that, for the majority, the picture of Islam that most people ‘see’ is painted by Television and not by reality. Benevolent but gruesome PC series like ‘Bones’ give us a pretty picture of Islamic women and intellectuals, but my actual experience of working with such people is different. I have never worked with Moslem women in high-tech, and by the men, dhimmitude is expected and enforced by actual complaints to the authorities who are ill equipped to do anything except support the supposed underdog.

    Only those who either have to live in moslem dominated areas, or those less prone to the TV mind meld are alive to the Islamic threat. and on the other hand, there is the Islamic money, always ready to be spread liberally to people with influence but without conscience.

    • I had the opportunity to work with women in technical roles in a Muslim society. I do not remember them being particularly devout.

      I remember they were largely there on merit as they were brighter than most if not all of the men on our staff.

  4. The danger for the nations of the West is that today they are not really “Christian” at all. People might say they are “Christians” but never darken the door of a church unless for a funeral or a wedding. So vast percentages of the European population are Christian in name only, they don’t pray and they don’t believe. How many of Europe’s churches are full on a Sunday? Very few. In fact many “Westerners” are now more likely to be atheists or agnostics. We’ve known this for years.
    So I would argue the “West” has a spiritual vacuum in which an invasive religion is seeking to exploit. That being Islam. These muslim migrants have no doubt about their religion or faith. They have no questions in their mind about their religion. They believe it and they practice it. And that gives them a strength that the West has lost. Many today have no belief in the afterlife, of Heaven, so will they fight and sacrifice to prevent Hell on Earth? Their enemy will.
    The West will fall to Islam, not because Christianity has weakened it, but because too many English, French, Swedes and Germans (to name a few) no longer have any faith in God or belief in an ultimate victory (See Revelation). Compromise and dhimmitude to save the skin will be the choice most make.

    • It’s not only that: Its the whole Christian European culture being replaced by its opposite: The Bible and the good old Europeans who conquered the world believed in physical punishments – that is no longer acceptable.

      Self reflecting on our sins, servitude, humility and humbleness has been replaced by assertive communication skills and “You are all gods” kind of mentality, in which pride is honored and even required of children.

      Forgiveness has turned into forgiveness without repentance. Lets forgive everybody everything – though they have not changed their ways yet…

      Charity – taken from the people – via 50+ percent taxation, and given as a power of the socialistic state – to give to everybody with a mouth big enough to “cry for help”.

      And so on…

      The collapse is certain, because the values upon which Great Imperialistic Europe once been built – are and have been systematically replaced by something else.

      • Along the lines of “Great Imperialistic Europe” … :

        You may want to investigate a great book on the subject, “Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind,” by Lewis Feuer (Prometheus, 1986).

        From Transaction Publishers :

        “In this major work, Lewis S. Feuer examines critical distinctions between progressive and regressive imperialism. He explores causes of anti-imperial ideologies, noting that unlike the spoliation that took place under regressive tartar, Spanish and Nazi colonizations, civilization flourished during the progressive imperialism of Hellenic, Macedonian, Roman, and modern British eras of empire-building.

        Feuer holds that it is erroneous to blame the relative backwardness of colonial peoples on the imperialism of Western democratic nations. In case after case, the character of colonial rulers determined economic development and democratic reform alike. Pursuing the theme of progress versus regression, Feuer compares the imperialism of the United States with that of the Soviet Union – to the detriment of the latter in nearly every instance. His effort constitutes nothing short of a fundamentally new perspective on the lessons of modern history and the mistakes of modern analysts of international affairs. Feuer opens as well a new chapter in political psychology with his study of such anti-imperialist intellectuals as Hobson, Morel, and Leonard Woolf; his portrait of Emin Pasha, the heroic Jewish governor of Equatorial Sudan, suggests a living model for Conrad’s Lord Jim.”

        From :

        [ ]

        “What a delight!… Feuer blends the coverage of history and biography to illumine the ‘main trends of our time’ with both finesse and thorough scholarship. I find his arguments cogent and his examples and documentations brilliant and true. Feuer plays like a master organist across the keys of history and biography.”
        – Joseph Brandon Ford, Contemporary Sociology

        “Whatever his or her favorite governing theory of empire, the student of the subject will find Feuer’s book compelling… trenchantly analyzed and regularly presented in remarkable prose… This study is a special distillation of the knowledge of a scholar whose intellectual interests have never been narrow.”
        – Raymond F. Betts, American Historical Review

        “What Feuer has accomplished here is to offer a vigorous and intelligent defense of progressive imperialism as an historical phenomenon.”
        —William L. O’Neill, The New Leader

        • Yes because deindustrializing India & sitting in bed with mohammadans got you so far.

          You created Pakistan & nowhere it haunts you, once you admit you [messed]up, well can be allies & fight this threat।।

          Otherwise, the fire of the Aryans against the Abrahamic horde will continue to blaze gloriously in the land of Five Rivers।।

    • That can change. Again, within two or three generations, i.e., 30 years, but I think it’s just wishful thinking. In my gut I feel that we’ve lost and it will be a thousand years before we stand on the moon again.

    • I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but became an atheist at 14. Nonetheless, I whole-heartedly subscribe to the Judeo-Christian moral code. I recognize islam* and muslims as the evil that they bring to civilization.

      Pretty much all religions have matured and renounced most of their vile and immoral practices (like the Inquisition, killing of “witches”, etc.). islam has not. It remains the same “religion” (it is actually a cult and an illogical, violent, sexually perverted ideology) that it was when mohammed thought it up in order to justify his perversions and to attract desert brigands and other scum to his banner. By the very nature of its precepts, it _cannot_ change, which is why we see ISIS (the very personification of true islam) torturing, killing, and enslaving (especially sex slaves – women, girls, and young boys) infidels and apostates.

      islam must either be confined (perhaps to a large island such as Madagascar) or eradicated. My preference would be eradication, since they have shown absolutely no willingness to coexist or assimilate over the last 1400 years, and only a fool would expect that to change.

      • I meant to indicate (*) that I refuse to capitalize anything to do with islam and muslims/moslems/mohammedans. I only capitalize ISIS to prevent confusion.

  5. You may want to rethink the part about Christianity and Dark Ages, because the modern world we live in is a product of the right hardware ( europeans ) combined with the right software ( christianity ). That being said, muslims destroyed former civilized places like North Africa, Asia Minor or the Middle East – so beware.

    • Utterly right. It was annihilation. Hard to believe that Egypt, where there are perennial bread lines, was once the breadbasket of the Med, or that literacy was common. The latter was true because papyrus was cheap and the necessity for literacy was a prerequisite for the immense amount of trade.

      Imagine North Africa as a seat of learning (the disappeared city of Hippo) and its abundant red clay pottery, sold throughout the southern Mediterranean. You’d think nothing could have made North Africa further debased after Islam got through with it…but then along came Clinton and Obama – and there went Libya and cities fell like dominoes into tribal anarchy.Egypt was fortunate to escape with “minor” damage in comparison.

      • There was also the disappearance of the cart in Islam-held lands. After repeated thefts, why would a dhimmi cartwright bother with his craft if the finished product could simply be taken away by his Islamic overlord? And Islam doesn’t value manual labor so none of them bothered learning how to build a useful item. When it finally fell apart, oh well…inshallah and all that.

        Islam is the prime example of anti-civilization. Thus, they still steal…

      • If I had a time machine I would love to go and see Carthaginian or Roman North Africa at its height.

  6. The balance of communal moral is given by the influence of two opposing poles, –
    1) “Man is something sacred to man”
    2) Homo homini lupus est

    When it is skewed to (2), crisis of morality occurs, which causes instability.
    Here is approximate sketch of imperial degradation:

    – Crisis of morality
    – Elites become more and more cynical, self-serving and corrupt
    – Many unnecessary and oppressive regulations introduced
    – Corruption and brute coercion become dominant hierarchy-forming agents
    – Institutions lose trust of population
    – Rule of law becomes hardship, then burden, then joke
    – Credibility and ability of law enforcement undermined
    – Slip to anarchy with everything that follows, –
    – Disruption of logistics, territorial fragmentation, raise of archaics – internal (mafia) and external (barbarians)

  7. Talk about pessimist! I thought I was bad for this.

    No there will be a civil war long before that. This will happen sometime now and up to 2023. Don’t judge us all the multicultural pansies in the Metropolitan areas. The rest of the population have had enough! No the Europe of silent anger will rise like an unseen mist of red rage. Blood will flow in quantity.

    The politicians will be running for their very lives. Only 50% voted in most recent election in overall totals. The silent ones believe it is not worth the act, simply to vote for corrupt venal politicos and bureaucrats.

    The Police and the armies across Europe are all sick to death of the so called “Multicultural” parasites and nonsense. Silence is not due to apathy but simmering seething anger. I have far more hope for the future than I once did. The “Right” are on the march and we all have long inconvenient memories for the supposed “elite”- as big a band of rascals as one could imagine.

    Yet Brexit happened as did Trump. Sooner rather than later Le Pen will get the Presidency. The Moslem fanaticism is its own worst enemy.

    Trust me-Europe will never be Moslem. I was right about the dangers of Islam 20 years ago and I am going to be proven correct again. 500,000,000 Europeans ain’t gonna give up beer, pork and football overnight. I also see a returning Christianity too. I love pork sausages too.

    • 500.000.000 europeans….divided.. much to many start screaming if they see a spider. How many ready to kill in first 3 months of civil war ? Not so many…
      in Europe today, about 80.000.000 to 100.000.000 muslims…62% said openly they want shari’ah….probably 15% want it too, but didn’t dare to say it openly. Bosnia+Albania…bridge to massive muslim invasion…in one month you can have 200.000.000 muslims as jihad troops…just for fun…they want to rape some and kill some…plus a Mercedes.
      I don’t know…to me, the future smells bad…very bad…

    • BTW…what we see now in Europe is only chaotic jihad…it is only testing the reaction of europeans..there is still many preparations for the grand finale ..When they (the big sheiks) will decide to start the “final” jihad, will be like blitz krieg..the elite of jihadists will be first in fight..and they have no merci ..they will use all the force in a very short time…so europeans will not have time to “learn” to kill, to not have time to go over the paralysing fear in order to organise a counter jihad. As a ex-military…this is how I’ll do it.

      • Yeah, chaotic jihad, almost a playful jihad. It’s largely unplanned, fairly spontaneous, testing to see how far they can go. And every time, every single time, they discover they can go much further. It’s like a mob moving through a crowded park on Sunday, punch a fakir here, trip one there, a quick taharrush standing rape circle, 12 or 13 men around one woman passing her around for a few minutes & move on, a knife flashes out, shouting starts up, ululating laughing Muslims testing prodding the limits. How long till the killing frenzy takes hold when they see how passive everyone is?

    • I’m afraid you are far too optimistic. Europe is fully unarmed. You can’t get a gun in nearly all European countries. Even buying an air rifle will land you into problems.

      About 1/3 is in favor of migrants. 1/3 is against, and 1/3 doesn’t give a hoot. Same story for leaving the EU: 1/3 in favor, 1/3 against, 1/3 couldn’t care less.

      • I am sure there will be guns…If the local authority refuse to give guns (from military or police stock) then the east will provide guns and military/para-military people. I know this because during communism every country was prepared to react in help of other country in this cases. At least the east is still thinking this way, when the enemy is islam. Also all the hunters and other “weaponized” associations do have guns. The point is, there will not be so many to react in real time. If the final jihad will be very fast and very cruel, we really don’t have so many chances because of fear and lack of right reaction from people.

  8. @Baucent, europe becoming islamic is not really a problem to me, we need a religion anyway. Be it the imported desert religion of christian, or the imported desert religion of islam. We don’t get the paganism back of our forebears. Now what does concern me is that the genetic change our new barbaric tribes are bringing with them, 1400 years of inbreeding and a complete ban on logis has done it’s damage in their intelligence and their health.
    Imagine if europe becomes islamic, including their agressiveness and lack of empathy, but with the current population and intelligence. Imagine how quickly we would conquer the middle east and put them to down. Think ww2 for example, how quickly we can conquer if we put our effert behind us.

  9. “Some American Christians seem to me to be exceptionally sensitive here. Almost as sensitive as another religion”

    We may appear to be a bunch of simpletons, what with our boomsticks and our sky-god, but it would be a lonely, childless, hopeless fight without us.

    Bless you, Numan, we may not agree on everything but I don’t think there has ever been a time when we have needed each other more

    • …many American Christians fund terrorism & forced conversion in Asia, but have no problem with interracial marriage।।

      • (1) Which American Christian denominations “fund terrorism and forced conversion in Asia”?

        (2) What specific parts of the world you define as “Asian”?

        (3) “Interracial marriage” at least as it is practiced in America, has been here since America’s founding, with a variety of responses to that fact.

  10. What a way to start the day — too depressing. And yet, one has the feeling that Mr. Numan is more right than wrong.

  11. My heavens, the Mass has 365 different readings from the Bible and has for many centuries. School kids study the catechism. as for the Pope, he hasn’t changed a single Doctrine of the Church though his overemphasis on the needs of the poor is open to criticism, I guess? Absent a “miracle” the West will fall to worldwide Marxism, not Islam which is too incompetent to rule well for long inside modernity.

  12. I would agree with Mr Numan that a society can degenerate in a remarkably short time. The late B.A. Santamaria, an outstanding Australian Catholic intellectual, said many years ago that any society is only a generation away from anarchy, and I think he was remarkably prescient.
    I lived and worked in Britain for most of the period 1965 to 1980, and my abiding memory is of a cultured and urbane middle class. The British education system at that time was quite rigorous, particularly in the private schools.
    British society has collapsed from within, I believe as a consequence of the Left’s long march through the institutions. The essays of Theodore Dalrymple are one of the best accounts of Britain’s decline.
    Australia, my native land, is following the same path as Britain and much of Europe. At present we have a Liberal (or conservative) government, but if – as likely – Labor wins the next election, the rate of decline will accelerate.
    At present Muslims comprise about 2% of the population. So far we have had only a small number of terrorist attacks, but that is due to the efficiency of the police force in preventing them. Under Labor we are likely to get more Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal, and dhimmitude may not be all that far away.

  13. The barbarians who are at the gate are those for whom money is everything and humans are nothing. Their ethos states that when a human is no longer useful the human is to be disposed of. Those you see on the streets and litter the landscape are the discarded trash that will not die as they should and so wander about homeless and destitute.
    The barbarians want it all and will use whomever they find to be useful to obtain it. Fools that they are they do not realize that in pulling down the houses of others they pull their own house down around their ears as well.
    As for the rest of us, we have become so dependent upon this computer-based system of finances that were it to crash the lights would go out and the result would be darkness and anarchy. A reset that would end this madness is long overdue, prolonged by those who stand to profit by the sweat and toil of others. Yet, the reset is coming, and the more it is prolonged the more serious the consequences will be.
    That is what my Bachelors in Business Administration has taught me.

  14. I recently began attending my mother’s church. It is the largest Methodist church in a southern (deeply southern) American city. I was shocked to find half full pews during the main service last fall. My mother said, “It’s football season and you know how we love our football. You will see the size increase after the year.” Well, the year turned and the turnout remained dismal.

    Not once has the goodhearted minister preached about the demon scratching at the door. Not once have I heard a sermon confident in our beliefs. Just a continuous string of watered-down do-gooder pablum Christianity. The closest we got to the true state of our faith was a visit by a Kenyan two months ago. He spoke about the burnt churches and the murdered souls. Congregants sat with sad looks on their faces, briefly acknowledging his country’s terrible plight. But twenty minutes later, the ersatz preaching was back again, as if the young man had never existed.

    My nephews were baptized nine days ago on Easter. Their church service was too contemporary for me but I almost wept with relief to find a vibrant Christian community again (28 baptisms and 29 confirmations on that day).

    I will be visiting my new pastor this week, asking him to preach on defending Christianity and what we can do about Islam, about the congregations on other continents that are being snuffed out… and about our precarious position. I expect his answer will be one of horrified embarrassment. That it would not be proper to preach against a fellow religion of the book.

    Is my reply Christian-centric? Yep. But what I see in our churches is a mirror of our Western civilization as a whole. Yes, the light will go out and soon. God help us.

    • I agree with you, retrofit. The church is silent on Islam and will be the downfall of America. I attend an evangelical church, not holy roller, or charismatic, but a bible church ane we have missionaries that come back from the Muslim killing fields instructing us on how to be better neighbors with them.

      The darkness comes flooding in and the church stands there like a dumb ox waiting for the slaughter thus betraying all of the sheep thereby.

  15. Mr. Numan, thank you for your writing! It and these so-important comments and ideas have sent me today on an emotional roller-coaster from despondency to some hope. (But now I am down again.)

    I was just reflecting. A little over 20 percent of the French electorate voted for Madame Le Pen. That means that almost 80 percent, including the non-voters, didn’t. That means in turn that 80 percent are not in favor of her agenda. When oh when will they have had enough?

  16. The so-called monotheist religions, other than Judaism and Christianity, of the Roman period were really monolatries, ie worship of one of many idols, with no denial of the rest of the pantheon. If monotheists are not interested in science then why did they give birth to it? Most Greek scientists were in fact just speculators without any means of testing their theories (true of many scientists now, of course), the Hindus were lost in mythology, as were their predecessors in the ancient Near East. The Dark Ages is a misleading term, Roman style civilization went on around the Mediterranean until the Islamic onslaught, only Northern and Western Europe were overrun by barbarians who quickly adopted civilized practices (apart from the Huns). The ‘dark’ was really the absence of records from which historians could draw.

    • “The Dark Ages is a misleading term, Roman style civilization went on around the Mediterranean until the Islamic onslaught, only Northern and Western Europe were overrun by barbarians who quickly adopted civilized practices (apart from the Huns). ”


      I highly recommend 2 books on the subject:

      Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy


      The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain

      • My understanding is that the term ‘Dark Ages’ is common pretty much only in the Anglosphere, the explanation being (partly) that the term dates only from the period after the ‘Reformation.’

        And the explanation for THAT is (partly) that most of the Anglosphere countries were colonies of Britain, which was a Protestant country, post-Reformation. Use of the term ‘Dark Ages’ served to paint with a black brush all that period of time where Roman Catholicism was the pre-eminent faith of most of the European Christian peoples.

        As such, ‘Dark Ages’ is another one of the ‘Black Legends’ about the Catholic Church which modern historical scholarship has debunked (like the Inquisition).

        Emmet Scott, in his Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy – which you cite – shows that this whole period is not what we in the West have been taught to believe it was … the ‘Dark Ages’ were brought on by the predations of the Mohammedans, as much if not more than by the collapse of Rome.

        So sad that in-fighting amongst Christians, and lying about one another, left us with a huge blind spot about where the real threat lay … Islam.

        • Even in English-language history books (I read college-level books mostly, not K-12), the term “Dark Ages” has been almost entirely replaced by “Late Antiquity,” then “Early Middle Ages/Medieval Era,” “High Middle Ages/Medieval Era,” “Early Modern” (this alternates with “Renaissance”), etc.

          My DH mentioned “the Dark Ages” a few weeks ago. I asked him to which century and culture he referred. He thought for a moment and said something like, “when monks were the only literates in Europe.” I said, “Ah, that’s now Late Antiquity or, depending, the Early Medieval period.” He looked befuddled, so I gave him my standard “25 words and a box top” summary.

          For an absolutely stunning–and unique–view on how our (Western) world came into being, please read “How We Got to Now: Six Innovations that Made the Modern World,” by Steven Johnson (review at ). I *might* be able to do justice to one of his examples (Glass), but not in an economical number of words.

          • *sigh* Somehow, “Cynthia in California” didn’t show. Yes, I wrote the above message re. “Six Innovations….”

    • Yes but why do you get mad when a church or bible is burnt if no objects are sacred? Idolatry to you just means anything non christian. You trace your spiritual heritage to an Egyptian pharaoh who became mentally ill & then his flock got kicked out centuries later.

      Those jews adopted some Zorastarian theorems & kept the Mosaic distinction of all other pantheons area false।।

      Pagan revival is going strong in Europe all ੪ abrahamic buildings the church, mosque, synagogue & ‘cultural centre’ will feel wrath।।

  17. This is profoundly sad and [insults redacted].

    Are the forlorn and forgotten supposed to look to men like you for hope?

    It is clear you have almost no knowledge of the early Church nor do you appear to have even a cursory idea of how the New Testament came into being; for instance, one criteria for whether of not a book would be included in the New Testament is whether or not it had been read at Mass.

    Bible reading for Catholics forbidden?

    [What] are you saying?

    The plain and simple truth is that the Latin Vulgate Bible (You do know what Latin vulgate means?) and the Bible translated into the vernacular language of many different peoples long pre-dated the protestant revolution.

    Please read “City of God” for starters as you have absolutely no clue as to what you are writing about.

    You could, for instance, read this…

    and easily discoverable online are the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

    ABS does not know what institution it is that fed you these lies but you have a clear case for a law suit based on educational abuse.

    As for the Roman Catholic Church and science, they went hand in glove as any even moderately educated man knows.

    You could try reading Fr, Jaki for starters.

    The Father of Europe is Saint Benedict for it was he and his monastic system that created the Europe we all now lament that is passing away.

    • That, my dear amator brain surgeon, is why I placed a caveat lector. What a pity you missed that.

      • ABS may not have missed that.

        A ‘caveat lector’ does not exonerate you for proceeding anyway with much of what you knew would be contested by the readership.

        I, for one, agree with many of his objections. Nevertheless, it was a good piece, which I enjoyed reading.

      • Caveat lector: devout Christians may want to ignore the following section. Some American Christians seem to me to be exceptionally sensitive here. Almost as sensitive as another religion… if it doesn’t agree with their perceptions.

        Nope, didn’t miss it but that warning does not give you the right to write wrong history so easily disproven and yet you refuse to engage or acknowledge your many manifest errors but try to slough off criticisms and corrections as the putative weakness of those who do know the Faith and its history.

        Yours is Whig history, and poorly reasoned dat that.

        You say you were raised a Catholic but it is quite clear you no longer are:

        2 John 9 is for you:

        And this is charity, that we walk according to his commandments. For this is the commandment, that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in the same: [7] For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. [8] Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. [9] Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.

        You are wildly wrong and ahistorical vis a vis the Church and science and ABS actually feels embarrassed for you that you not only believe such an easily proven wrong falsehood but that you try and convince your readers to accept that falsehood.

        It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.

        The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.

        You evince almost no knowledge of the facts about Vatican 1 and Infallibility and it would not come as a surprise to learn you, like many others, think Vatican 1 was called to as you say, Legislate infallibility.

        Of course, you reread in conflating legislation and teaching, but that aside:

        Bishop Gasser’s Relatio at Vatican 1 (The official Tradition of the Catholic Church vis a vis infallibility) observes that there have been thousands and thousands of infallible decisions taken prior to Vat 1:

        It appears to be the case that this blog considers the history of Christendom

        This blog routinely avers that originally the Church was not Roman Catholic but, rather, Orthodox, but that is easily proven to be Mt. Athos type polemics completely antagonistic to real history.

        If the putative Orthodox Church was the original Christian Church, please reconcile these quotes from Orthodox Saints publicly teaching Roman Papal Primacy.

        The question ABS has for the author i smile –

        If you are so easily proven wrong in your claims about Church and Science and the History of Christianity, why ought anyone trust or believe any of your other claims?

        • “This blog” does NOT aver “that originally the Church was not Roman Catholic but, rather, Orthodox”. Not if by “this blog” you mean the proprietors, who are myself and Dymphna.

          Such assertions may be made by our contributors and/or commentors. You would be wise to observe the distinction between those good people and “this blog”, which allows a wide latitude of assertions that it does not necessarily support or agree with (or even have an opinion on).

          • Dear Baron. ABS reads many blogs (too many prolly) and he apologies for confusing the content of other blogs with this blog.

            As an Irish-Algonquin Catholic extending the excuse, will my defense of a double willful heritage be accepted? 🙂

            Seriously, I apologise for making that serious error.

        • “If the putative Orthodox Church was the original Christian Church, please reconcile these quotes from Orthodox Saints publicly teaching Roman Papal Primacy.”

          For the first 1000 years, the Latin and Eastern churches shared the exact same saints.

          About 80-90% of the theology of these two churches are identical. In fact, for the first 1000 years or so, they were one church before they were sundered by accidents of history and the egoism of Man.

          According to the Orthodox, it is inarguable that the Bishop of Rome holds primacy, but he is the ‘first among equals’. The original organization of the church was a brotherhood of bishops–a flat organization–the Bishop of Rome holding primacy of position, as Jesus wished. The Bishop of Rome was never intended to dictate over his brethren, but to lead them, to work with them. Peter and Paul disagreed on the Judaizers, if you recall, and Paul convinced Peter that he was in error on the matter. That is, Peter was not infallible.

          In 1084 AD, through egoism, accident and misunderstanding, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople had a falling-out that destroyed the cohesion of the original church. Bishops should not be issuing ultimata to each other, but working together. The schism was, and continues to be, a failing of Man, not of God.

          I strongly suggest reading the original sources available on the history of the church, especially the works of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

          • Ahem, ahem. You could have read the link ABS posted


            and responded to that specifically instead of producing an ahistorical, but popular, recapitulation of ecclesiastical history.

            ABS does read the Church Fathers and he posted a link to them.

            As to what you wrote, stop to consider the symmetry between the Davidic Kingdom and the New Covenant Church established by Jesus; The Davidic Kingdom was a Monarchy – that is, not all in it are equal and there was no such thing as primus inter pares ever in any Monarchy.

            The claim is shown for the perplexing claim it is (being kind) because Jesus gave the Keys to Peter alone.

            This could become a lengthy post if ABS does not rapidly bring it to a close but not before nothing that in the Davidic Kingdom, there was a Queen with significant power.

            Solomon enthroned his mother as Gebirah (1 Kings 2:12-19) Queen Mother and, thus, eventually when the Davidic Kingdom came to and end, it was necessary that the Queen Mother must also be deposed.

            So, is it surprising that Jesus would establish a Monarchy ruled by His royal steward (like 1 Kings, 4:6) and also have a Queen Mother?

            The polemical and factual error of the primus inter pares is clearly seen by trying to claim that Jesus established a Royal Steward with no primary power/authority and we know He didn’t do that because He gave the keys only to Peter.

  18. Thank you for this excellent essay!

    May I remind you that, for us Catholics, the Pope is infallible ONLY when he speaks under certain specified conditions (“ex cathedra”) and about certain specified subjects (dogma and moral). So almost nothing of what Pope Francis say about politics are decisive for us…

    May God send us good and strong leaders in the battle against our old foe, Islam (which is not only a religion but also an (evil) ideology…The whole world is seriously lacking such leaders, and everywhere people are being blinded by PC considerations.

    Please forgive any grammar or spelling mistakes (I am not a native speaker/writer of English)

    • I was raised as a Roman Catholic. The pope’s infallibility was invented and pushed through only around 1870 AD. Even medieval popes couldn’t get this piece of insane legislation push through.

      What the popes says and does, is what matters. Not his doctrines. This character holds 2 doctorates. He isn’t going to be so stoopid as to call upon his infallibility. He simply preaches the gospel according to Marx (not Groucho). Without spilling the beans he found his wisdom and benevolence in Che Guevara.

      • Actually the Pope’s infallibility was carefully circumscribed in 1870, to specific things and under certain conditions.

    • Whenever the pope speaks, and it does not matter whether it is “ex cathedra” or not, the world listens as does the Catholic flock and is affected by his ruminations. In an official Vatican document where he avers that Islam is peaceful, his doctrine, so terribly wrong, does extreme damage to the flock. It is part of Islam’s global jihad to discredit Western leaders thus disheartening their followers but your point about “ex cathedra” or not makes little difference in this war between Islam and the rest of the world.

  19. How [insult redacted] to state that the Catholic Church didn’t allow people to read the Bible!

    How many people had access to Scripture before Gutenberg invented the printing press? Hardly any because of the sheer cost! Rare and valuable, since all had been handwritten. And what was the very first thing Gutenberg printed on his shiny new invention? THE BIBLE. Still the best seller of all time.

    the “reformation” [REVOLUTION] benefitted by the printing press by printing off its heretical garbage and circulating it wildly, so by the very thing that Gutenberg used to help the Church was alternately used to attempt to destroy Her.

    Stop [saying things that I disagree with]. Next thing, you’ll tell us they chained up Bibles to keep them away from us dumb Catholics.

    Oh, and btw, I have a Douay Rheims bible from England that’s about 200 years old, long before ww2. Oops.

    • Why did the reformation church smuggle bibles into England. Was it because the Catholic Church did not want the people to read the Bible? Would the papacy lose power if they read the Bible and understood what Christ was saying to them? Could it be that the Bible never stated that a pope was needed to intercede for sinners?

    • Theoretically you are correct. The church never forbade the reading of the bible. Provided it was the official version, which was in Latin only.

  20. “Another problem was inflation and lack of money. ”

    Inflation is caused by an excess of money, not a shortage of it.

    • You have millions, but you can buy only one bread with. You still don’t have money. This is inflation.

  21. There is no Marx today except what I very inadequately represent. I am modest and hesitate to make such a claim…it is not my nature…but I have read most of what has been written.

    The writer of this piece Mr H. Nunan writes the following and repeats the sense of this following piece often:

    QUOTE…”What the popes says and does, is what matters. Not his doctrines. This character holds 2 doctorates. He isn’t going to be so stoopid as to call upon his infallibility. He simply preaches the gospel according to Marx (not Groucho). Without spilling the beans he found his wisdom and benevolence in Che Guevara.”

    I am usually very quiet in response to such assertions as in the above because often there are many things of great value as I noted in his reference to the Andalus Myth which is a central concept inside of political correctness today, and has been for the past 20 years at least.

    As in…that the Andalus myth which is peddled by so many today connected with such as the BBC began with the anti-democratic nature of the Vizigothic rule. They were so oppressive of the ordinary Spanish of the time that there was no defence against the INVADING Mohammedans. The ordinary people were made defenceless by leadership, more specifically the lack of leadership and the crisis of leadership. As a Trotskyist I would tend to emphasise that issue of absence of leadership as being crucial. It seems to me that has not been emphasised enough by present writers. The lesson for today is so crucial. There are many today who are intent on stopping us understanding the history of Islam and it does not end there either. Those today that are giving us good knowledge like the above writer IMMEDIATELY throws in another “beauty” as when he more or less calls the Pope a Marxist. How flipping confusing is that? But it is there!

    So that is a false trail laid right there by Mr Nunan. It is well known that the Jesuits were the bitterest enemies of Marx and Marxism. The Church has been the bitterest enemy of Marxism and Communism so much so that the Church of Rome and the Lutheran Church in Germany played a key role in supporting Hitler on the basis that Hitler was the lesser of the two evils, in the mind of the Church the greatest evil was Communism. Have you proved that Pope Francis has changed in this regard. Mr Nunan also draws in Che and also OF course Castro. But Castro (and Che) was a middle class adventurer who adopted STALINISM which is the antithesis of Marxism. Just these little things jump off the page when a real Marxist such as I reads Mr Nunan. It shows that in this field he really does not know what he is talking about.

    Another thing the reason that the Catholic Church got behind Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s was because there was deep Antisemitism in the Catholic Church as there was in the German Lutheran Church.

    The essay by Mr Nunan scarcely or does not at all mention the issue of Palestinianism today, which to my mind has always been Antisemitism preserved and carried into the present…a poison that has destroyed the left and destroyed big sections of bourgeois liberal thought as well.

    This IS the poison. It even effects the Israeli bourgeois leaders. Netanyahu on one time only referred to the role of Hajj Amin el Husseini and thereby the Arabs (Islam) in carrying out the Holocaust. But there was no consistency in his approach. What should have been a central Judaic theme in all political discource was dropped by Netanyhau after about a fortnight.

    The essay by Mr Nunan is interesting. There are some great ideas indeed but then I find that he is in his hatred for Marxism and for Communism on EXACTLY the same level as those Catholic Bishops in German, in Ireland, in Poland, in especially Spain, but above all in the Vatican – is following that exact same route and will more and more follow that route. That is so dangerous.

    And in conclusion I find that Mr Nunan is very dangerous for the truth in many of his assertions. He makes a very dangerous assertion that Pope Francis is a follower of Karl Marx. This is bombastic on his part. He provides no analysis and no evidence that Pope Francis is in any way following the analysis of Karl Marx. He also shows that he knows nothing about Castro in Cuba and that Castro was a Stalinist not a Marxist. People like Mr Nunan often answer to such points as mine “Who cares?” but that shows their own ignorance of history.

    • Remember that the Pope is an Argentinian Jesuit. Living here in Colombia one gets something of the Latin American perspective. In an establishment that I was visiting on the day that Pope Francis’ selection was announced, one of the maids was kneeling in front of the television set waiting for the new Pope to come out onto the balcony. The other was going about her work as usual (“What does this have to do with me, my family is Pentecostal Unida”). Later in the day a formerly Catholic couple were expressing their misgivings about the Pope, pointing out that he was a Jesuit, and that Jesuits were basically the source of “Liberation Theology”, which is basically Marxism.
      It is also a fact that the Catholic Church in very much opposed Bible reading by the laity until Vatican II here in Colombia. I know adults from that background now in their fifties who were told as young people that reading the Bible would send a person crazy. The situation now is very different with regard to Catholics reading the Bible, but I have heard Jesuits who now are on all the “higher criticism” line about why the Bible isn’t really reliable. They also tend to be big on moral relativism.

    • I apply the rule of the duck. If it waggles like a duck, quacks like a duck and has a flat bill, it probably is a duck.

      Plenty of Jesuits were warm supporters of the South American liberation theology. The current pope is one of them. If you listen to his words, it’s almost like hearing Yasser Feras (Jesse Klaver, leader (Dutch) Green Left) speak. Word for word the same.

  22. Ronald B…[redacted for violating commenting rules]

    It is the mark of a coward (not saying you are) to attack a person in a personal way and omit completely their body of work. Johnson is a fanatical Catholic. I mean what was their work all about? Any honest and serious reading of Marx and Engels shows very quickly that there was a continuity…they based themselves on the best that bourgeois society and learning had created. You only have to start with the simple sketches in the first half or so of the Communist manifesto written for working people in the 1840s.

    Or consider Dialectics of Nature by Engels (1883 unfinished work) and at least glance at chapter 9: The part Played by Labour in the Transition Ape to Man, and you will find a scientific method employed there by Engels in which he predicted the outstanding work of the Leakey family in Kenya and of especially Don Johannson and his find of the hominid “Lucy”, discovered November 24, 1974.

    From the point of view of philosophy, Engels was maintaining that “Practice” was primary. That is what Johannson proved with his findings, in particular the small ape-like brain. Almost everything Engels speculated about came true in “Lucy”. Johnson says nothing about these kinds of things.

    It is very similar to the way these hatchet jobs are done on Trump in the MSNBC Media of today. In other words, Johnson is biased and as biased is no friend of the Jewish people. This is because Jews will only survive as a people by total honesty.

    • It is the mark of a coward (not saying you are) to attack a person in a personal way and omit completely their body of work. Johnson is a fanatical Catholic.

      You just made your own point with what you go on to say…(not saying you are, of course).

  23. H Numan

    That is such a huge subject. Liberation theology arose within the Catholic Church and of course they adopted Marxist language for their own ends etcetera but what was it precisely, and who are the Greens, who are the Palestinians, etcetera, we enter a minefield.

    No I was talking about how the Holocaust would not have happened at all, no way, if it had not been for the support that the strong Catholic Church and Parties gave to Hitler in these countries in the late 20s and 30s: Poland, Ireland, Spain, Germany and others.

    I do not like being diverted from important points that I make and that point is important.

    I repeat the Catholic Church saw Fascism as a much better alternative than Communism. So they went strongly for Franco and Hitler. No escaping that reality. The Catholic Church is the most bitter opponent of Marxism.

    Is Pope Francis then a new species? I contest that very strongly.

    So the Catholic Church, and German Lutheran Church, played a central role in bringing Hitler to power in Germany.

    That is the essential thing about the Catholic Church and the Holocaust.

    The Holocaust of the Jews would not have happened without the Catholic Church.

    Of course we do not write history. Highly paid operatives like Paul Johnson and Karen Armstrong do. But plenty has been researched and written to show that what I claim above is true.

    Every single word that Paul Johnson writes about the Jews and the Holocaust stands in the road of a true understanding of how the Holocaust actually happened

    • As H.W. Crocker III observed in “Triumph The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” the Catholic Church’s concordat with the German Govt (It gave up its Catholic Center party in exchange for Catholic freedom of religion) was indicative of the general weltanschauung of the Catholic voter in Germany (Esp. Bavaria and Rhineland) which weren’t too keen on a political party intent on reinstating Kulturkampf.

      That aside, the redoubtable Mr. Crocker notes, correctly, that the Concordat was no more indicative of Catholic support for Hitler than the Catholic Concordat with Soviet Union was an endorsement of Bolshevism.

      Crocker also, correctly, notes that had Germany not gone Protestant it would have retained the Inquisition which would never have let Hitler ascend to such power, thus, the war crimes against the Jews would not have happened.

      The author of this article appears to have a continuing internal struggle about the Faith resulting in Cognitive Dissonance and which intellectual pressure is dissipated by blaming the Catholic Faith for everything that went wrong.

      Most men give-up the Faith in favor of one or two of their favorite sins and, thus, they are constrained to depict the Church as a corrupt and evil institution that they were right to abandon.

  24. These articles are of extreme importance in understanding, at least partly, how dictatorship is being prepared on all fronts on the basis of censorship, directed at stopping people understanding what is Islam:

  25. This article completely ignores why Rome and Byzantine era disappeared and why EU went into dark ages. It was because of Muslim conquest. Watch Bill Warren talk about the fall of Byzantine Empire, North Africa, Spain and how EU -they know now b/c of new archeological findings in ship logs:

Comments are closed.