The War Against the West? Still Going Strong!

In the following essay our Dutch correspondent H. Numan provides a refresher course (or introductory course, in the case of newly-minted “Islamophobes”) about the history of Islam’s continuous war against Europe.

The war against the West? Still going strong!

by H. Numan

The war for the West isn’t going to start any day soon, as most people seem to think. It’s already underway. Or more accurately: it has never stopped since 622 AD. Most people only know a little bit about some major conquests, and not a lot of those. Nothing about the many countless smaller battles and wars that continued almost non stop. Some people know about the Battle of Roncevalles or Roncevaux in 788 AD, mainly because of the Song of Roland. Fewer people know about Charles Martel, who defeated the mohammedan invasion decisively earlier in France. Fewer people still know about the many invasion attempts deep into France almost to the Swiss border. And it didn’t stop there. Of course here at Gates of Vienna we know about the siege of that city in 1683.

Did you know that hussars were a Hungarian answer to Turkish invasions? I’ll bet you win a lot of drinkies in the bar if you challenge your friends with that one. Not the first time the Hungarians bore the brunt of the attack.

We don’t learn about it. It’s not politically correct. You have to figure everything out for yourself. If you read up, as I did, you will notice our war began in 622 AD and never really ceased. All you can hope for is for a Chamberlainian ‘peace for our time’. Not for your children, certainly not for your grandchildren. Islam is very much like cancer. You have to eradicate it completely. Otherwise it will grow back. Usually much stronger and far more aggressive. The virus very much learns from past experiences. Let one single cell be, and you are mortal peril. That’s a bold statement, but regretfully, it’s the truth. Dr. Bill Warner counted over 700 battles for Europe, from 622 AD until today.

“But we can live in peace with muslims; we have done that always,” whine politically correct dhimmis — left and right. No, we didn’t. But we don’t read about it. You have to dig for it. We didn’t in the past, as you can’t learn everything from history. The relatively unimportant parts were left out. Those parts are coming back to hound us now.

That’s why we discovered America. After the end of the crusades — which we lost — Constantinople had fallen to the Turks. They now controlled the Silk road to China. The sultan wasn’t interested in continuing trade, not even at extortionate rates. An alternative route had to be found. Sailing along the coast of Africa was highly dangerous, because of the Barbary coast pirates (next paragraph). That is one of the reasons why Columbus tried to sail to the west. It was at least an indirect consequence of the crusades.

We have to do it all over again. This time not with spices but with oil. There is a lot of oil in the world, but most of it lies below Arab countries. Back then our need of spices was used to strangle the West, now they do it with oil. When spice prices got high enough, it became commercially viable to take the dangerous and expensive sea route instead of the overland route. Likewise, we will have to find alternatives for Arab oil. Shale oil becomes an economical alternative if OPEC holds onto its monopoly. The same for alternative energy sources. History repeats itself.

Forgotten are the many Barbary wars we had to fight. Not only Dutch fought them, but the West in general. Like England and France. Even America had to. Your founding fathers were just as dumbfounded about mohammedanism as we are today. Few people are aware that the area of the North African coast was known as the Barbary Coast for centuries. Its rulers extracted tribute for allowing ships to trade along the African coast and into the Mediterranean. That tribute was jizya. Our Michiel de Ruyter had to fight several battles and wars against them. So did your Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson once asked a Barbary representative why they couldn’t leave people alone and why they levied such high fees and never kept their side of the agreement. The muslim was very much surprised. Why, you have to pay jizya, of course. You are a non-believer. We can do anything we want with unbelievers. He even said the ultimate goal was world domination. Yes, even back then. He didn’t commit Taqiya, which is unusually rare for a muslim.

Michiel de Ruyter liberated lots of white slaves there. Among others, many Hungarian Huguenots. For that reason he is still revered in Hungary. In Holland, however, he is now vilified as a white slaver and oppressor. (Only by the loony left, of course.) There was an excellent movie made about Michiel de Ruyter, which I highly recommend: Admiral. One of the better Dutch movies, I think. Which doesn’t say much, but this movie is pretty good.

That’s just a meager serving of history for you. I left out the occupation of Spain. It took almost 800 years to reconquer it. We call that period the Reconquista. I left out the occupation of Sicily and southern Italy. How many of you know Sicily was an emirate?

I left out the conquest of the Byzantine Empire. The conquest of Eastern Europe. Please remember that the Ottoman Empire had to give up its European dominions a mere century ago. Even the Eastern Europeans don’t seem to remember it anymore. Not even the Greeks, who were occupied from 1350 until 1820 AD by the Turks.

I left out the conquest and holocaust of Asia, notably India. If you think muslims behave barbarically, you ain’t seen nothing yet! Denizens of Western and Eastern Europe were, or are, ‘people of the book’. Muslims have to behave slightly less barbarically towards them. No holds are barred if you are not a Jew or a Christian. Anything goes. And anything did go, plus a lot worse.

Right now slavery is in the limelight again. Whitey did it! is the current mantra. No, it’s quite the opposite. It was white men who abolished it. Nobody else did it. “Whitey shipped them across the Atlantic; they are barbaric!” Perhaps that is the reason why so few black people take sea cruises nowadays. They won’t fall for that one again!

Please note that for every slave shipped across the Atlantic at least three marched to North Africa and the Middle East.

David Livingstone didn’t discover dark Africa. It was already discovered, and exploited as well. By Arab slave traders. What he discovered was a huge trading network with resting stations, first aid posts, etc., all to facilitate the slave trade. His guides all spoke Arabic, the lingua franca of Africa. Zanzibar was the southern branch office. It was an Arab colony ruled from Oman, until the British took it over — and abolished its slave trade soon afterwards — in 1890. They effectively had control since the 1840’s.

White people didn’t catch the slaves. Africans were very good at doing that themselves. Not so much in managing or trading them. That was done mainly by Arab traders. Also in West Africa. We bought what they, Africans and Arabs, supplied.

Ah, politically correct ignoramuses will reply. There we’ve got you! There are hardly any black people in the Middle East or North Africa. But loads of them in the Americas. See? You’re lying!

Sorry to disappoint. Yes, that is completely true. But as usual the ignoramuses conveniently forget something. Namely, how do you manage your slaves? Even the sorriest slave owner in America took care of his property. Deliberate castration for example rarely happened in the Americas. It was standard practice in the muslim world. After all, you don’t want your property to hump your womenfolk, do you? Working your slave to death was considered bad business practice in America, but was completely normal in the Middle East and North Africa. What do you do with unwanted offspring? On farms it’s still not uncommon to drown unwanted kittens or puppies. What exactly is the difference between a slave brood and puppies? a mohammedan might ask you. With a straight face, even.

Slave raids, up to the coasts of Ireland, England and even Iceland, happened. Along the coasts of the Mediterranean a network of refuges and warning castles existed. The ruins still are there today. The local population could take refuge in case of raids. They happened that often. That quaint ruined castle overlooking the Mediterranean you romantically remember from a holiday was there for a reason. Islam was that reason.

How can you negotiate with that sort of people? They have a ineradicable belief in their own superiority — which is common for most people — and in their absolute theocratic right to rule the world. Their whole religion is constructed so it cannot be changed or improved upon. Which is one of the mantras of left-wing loonies. They want to change the unchangeable… Usually by better education — something the left is incapable of anyway.

Do remember that most terrorists not only have tertiary education, but most often in exact sciences. The London bombers were engineers and doctors, for example.

That is where left wing loonies go wrong, and I very much differ from that kind of atheist. It’s politically correct to assume all religions are alike. There isn’t any difference between the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Christianity, mohammedanism, or whatever religion.

I beg to differ. There are vast differences among them. Christianity has mostly lost its teeth. Yes, atrocities did occur. Witch-burnings, persecution of gays, the Inquisition — you name it. But that is in the past. Most of it, a very long time in the past. Do we hold modern Germans responsible for the atrocities of WW2? Likewise, do we hold mohammedans responsible for the atrocities they committed in the past? No, we don’t.

Then why do we hold only Christians responsible for what happened half a millennium ago?

That is hypocritical, and hypocrisy is what the left uses to achieve its goal. If they really cared about the institution of slavery, they should be up in arms right now. But they are suspiciously silent. Not a peep about slavery in Qatar, where the soccer stadium is being build with slave labor. Not a word about present-day slavery in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Kuwait is a firm supporter and practitioner of slavery, as well as our ally. Not a word about slave markets that opened in Raqqa as soon as ISIS could establish them. Or about the slave markets currently held in Libya.

But lots of words about slavery perpetrated by whiteys. Especially about Wiedergutmachung. When people willfully ignore modern slavery, focus solely on one single group out of many, and demand ridiculously high financial compensation for wrongs done by their ancestors — what do you make of it? I see a bunch of tricksters at work. What about you?

To conclude this short essay, sometimes you read a “funny” bit of news. “ISIS demanded that Prime Minister May embrace islam, otherwise they will be forced to declare war.” Something like that. As a bit of funny news on a slow day. Well folks, it’s not funny at all and it’s not news either. It is a religious obligation. When mohammedans want to go on jihad they are religiously obliged to give the infidels — only the people of the book — a chance to peacefully convert. The Byzantine emperors got that invitation. The Negus of Abyssinia got one. Queen Victoria must have received several. Every president of France gets at least a few. Now that America has become a legitimate target, so do US presidents.

Napoleon didn’t get such an invitation, but in the eyes of most mohammedans, he is a mohammedan himself. For when in Egypt he spoke the shahada in public. So he didn’t need to be invited. Western politicians lie all the time, you say? Doesn’t matter. Once you have spoken the shahada, you are one of them. For ever. That’s how mohammedans look at it.

The news usually makes fun of it, but rest assured: there is no fun involved. They are deadly serious. Yes, you can defeat them. Usually after great pain and cost. But they will never give up.

About fifty years ago almost no mohammedans lived in Western Europe. Due to shortsightedness, greed, sheer stupidity and ignorance about fifty million mohammedans are living in Europe right now.

It’s not too late, but pretty damn close to it, to change that. If that still is possible.

— H. Numan

25 thoughts on “The War Against the West? Still Going Strong!

  1. Michiel de Ruyter and his exploits aren’t taught in US history classes. In fact, most schools here don’t focus at all on the great threats to Western culture, Islam and communism. Both operate as a combination religious / political system. Both believe in attacking groups that think differently. Both, for some reason, are still tolerated in Western countries…but for how much longer, I wonder.

  2. I know. But even in Holland the political correct are now trying to tar him. Together with our other naval heroes. Michiel de Ruyter was the greatest. He ranks easily with Nelson. His greatest deed was sailing the Medway, and taking the flagship the Royal Charles booty, plus burning most other ships. That was at that time the home base of the Royal Navy. that’s what U47 cap Prien did in WW2, only on a much larger scale.

    De Ruyter was a selfmade man, from poor backgrounds. Something the left should appreciate, but don’t anymore. The mask has slipped off, I guess.

    • There is a big hole in Western history where truth is dumped. The fact that the Dutch ruled the seas and were the best merchants (for a good while) is in that hole. Many people are not aware that the English refugees – Puritans – who sought asylum in the Netherlands finally kicked off from there and set sail for the rocky coast of Plymouth to found their New World colony. Had the Dutch not been willing to tolerate their presence for so long, history would have been very different.

      Perhaps the turning point was when they traded New Amsterdam for the Spice Islands. Once England got New York, there was no turning back, but at the time it seemed like a good deal to the Dutch merchants. But I believe it was the founding spirit of the Dutch, whose whispers you can hear if you travel the Hudson Valley, is responsible for New York City’s prominence. Many, many other peoples would come to that port, scattering further west. But their first encounter with America was the Dutch spirit of tolerance.

      By the way, this Dutch spirit is best seen in the willingness of New Amsterdam to let the first ship of Jews land in the new world. All the other ports had refused them entry.

  3. Mr Numans, thank you for a terrific essay. A useful summary of the history of the West and Islam.
    A demoralized, spiritually vacant West will not stand against Islam.
    Only a civilization revitalized by a return to Jesus will triumph over the Mohammedans.

  4. This is a great essay. I think that the research of the Truth is a personal path that one has to do by himself. You cannot wait the ruling political class to tell you history they do not want even to hear, because petrol and money control the world today. The (hypocritical) multiculturalism and the new pagan (or multireligious) society is the consequence of the weakness of the Truth against a relativist world thick of lies on Christ.
    “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. JN, 18, 37

  5. One should add that not only the Hussars were to fight muslims but also the Cosaks , a peasant militia in Ukraine and Crimea, raised to fight the permanent slave raids from turkish territory on the Black Sea throughout centuries.

  6. Very good essay. I’ve been telling this for years now, only to fall on politically correct deaf ears…This stuff should be taught at every elementary school. From the first grade up.
    And by the way, the story of Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) is true: he took people to the caliphate in Spain as slaves. Because he was a muslim slavehunter to begin with. Now chew on that one for a while, regressive leftist loonies of Kick Out Zwarte Piet, caramba!

  7. I do disagree with a few features of what is a generally excellent article.

    Saudi Arabia and the other oil states do not hold us over a barrel, virtually or physically, through their production of oil. North America outstripped the Middle East in oil and gas production, even under the post-American, anti-American Obama administration which tried every legal and quasi-legal means to slow the US production and transportation of energy, oil, gas and coal.

    The US government is actually addicted to Saudi dollars, not Saudi oil. The Saudis accumulate dollars, using the dollars to buy treasury bonds. So, the US is able to print loads of dollars to finance deficit spending, without triggering inflation because the dollars are actually a loan from the Saudis who bought the dollars with oil. However, the Saudis are using their massive access to dollars to buy land, communications, and educational institutions in the US, and to fund thousands of mosques. Mosques are outposts of non-violent (and occasionally, violent) jihad. In effect, the US government is trading the capital assets of the US for spending.

    The logical thing for the US government to do would be to limit the spending of the Saudis by preventing them access to US communications, educational, religious, or manufacturing facilities. But, this would cause the Saudis to buy fewer dollars, raising the interest rates on borrowing, and make the US government go even further into debt.

    All this is a long way of saying, the US government loses its independence through deficit spending. Someone has to pay for the destructive, useless, trillion-dollar wars in the Middle East and the useless, expensive military adventures in 100-plus countries in the world. Someone has to pay for the massive transfer payments and bureaucracy in the government, all staffed by voters.

    With a sensible, budget-based government, we don’t have to worry about the oil of the Gulf states, even though they stole the oil production facilities developed by Westerners. We also wouldn’t have to worry about offending the Saudis when we bar Muslim immigration completely, and keep strict tabs on Saudi foreign students, shipping them back home the day after graduation.

    I realize this is not the main point of Numar’s essay, but in my opinion, the primary vector of Islam is currently subversion and immigration, rather than military conquest. Muhammad himself began the conquest through the initially-peaceful immigration to Medina, allowing him to build his military machine inside the walls of the city.

  8. Sorry but when Colon (Columbus for Americans) sailed the Portuguese vessels [they] were in Natal (SA) area.

    So your «Sailing along the coast of Africa was highly dangerous, because of the Barbary coast pirates» is not true in the Atlantic, but true in the Mediterranean.

    The Atlantic coast of Marroco* and Ceuta were part of Portugal, so the pirates were in Algier and Tunis. Their boats were not good to sail in the Atlantic -just in fine weather and no winds. We left the area in the middle of XVIIIth century Mazagão/El Jadidah. Ceuta voted to be Spanish. Spain controlled Oran and Melilla.

    The raids on Ireland, England and Iceland were done by converted Europeans that could sail in open seas and know how to build good ships.

    Circumnavigating Africa and reach[ing] India in 1498 and China in 1513 were part of Reconquista -retraction of muslims to Arabia. Still not done, completely 🙂

    * see map on this site:

    • Oh, my. Your link led to lots of interesting reading about the formation of forts by the Portuguese in hostile territory. Some of it quite ingenious. Too bad they were in Tangiers, Algeria, Morrocco, etc. None of those places wanted anything but Western military info. No intellectual curiosity about the West, no rise in individual industry or improvement in their daily life.

      • Dear Dymphna:
        Yesterday, I had no time to answer you but ifyou are interested how to ‘kill’ economically and military Islam, as we did in the XVIth century see:
        Last map is accurate, except for the lack of Aden, at the entrance of Red Sea.

        Of course, Syriam, Macao and Dejima (Nagazaki bay. Nagazaki was first built by Portuguese -that is why is on a hill, the opposite of Japanese cities, that are always on plains) were trade points and not military fortresses against Islam. Unfortunately, Dutch and British, just pretending to trade, help some of local Muslim States to recover, to get their favour…

        In the 80ties of past century; Pentagon tried to understand how 3000 Portuguese controlled the Indic, so they sent Professors to investigate, in order to prevent what happened to us -we lost control. West Coast universities have a lot of studies -those of no military importance are public.

        If you are interested in fortresses, our biggest, outside Portugal, is Real Forte Principe da Beira. Almost 1km perimeter in the middle of Amazonian jungle. It was rediscovered by Brazilian army when they tried to secure their boundary with Bolivia -narco traffic area. They thought the documents about it were legends. The English version is a very poor one and doesn’t describe the abandon…íncipe_da_Beiraíncipe_da_Beira

        Sorry if I bored you.

    • I’m sorry to disagree. But to sail down Africa you do enter the area patrolled by Barbarian pirate ships. Their ships were definitely capable of sailing *on* the Atlantic, just not suitable for *crossing* the Atlantic.

      Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish dominions, not Portuguese. The pirate ships were dhows, which were used a.o on ocean voyages on the Indian ocean. They are more suitable for traveling close to the shore. But that is mainly because of the lack of space and supplies. Dhows are used even today for ocean voyages on the Indian ocean.

      • Ceuta was recovered by Portugal in 1415. From 1580 to 1640 we had the same king as Spain. In 1640 we ‘fired’ (was legal) our king, and he just becomes king of Spain. All territories of Portugal, BUT Ceuta, recognized a new king we elected (John IV). Spain did not recover Ceuta from the Moors. They rule it from 1640 till now.

        Dhows exist in the Indic Ocean, Persian Gulf* to India, not in the Mediterranean. Here you had galleys.

        Yes, pirates tryed to get out to the Atlantic shores, but since they had no proper ships and no bases (check map, please) it was difficult. Their attacks were inside the Mediterranean Sea.

        In 1717, we helped a coalition of Mediterranean powers to fight the Turkish navy. With some wind, we could manage to fire the galleys better than the galleys from Malta Knights, Venice (this time on the right side) and the Vatican.

        *in the Red Sea you have a boat that Arabs copied from Portuguese. Latin Sail and nailed boards, (as ships built in UK, Norway, Holland -Atlantic tradition)

  9. “Islam is very much like cancer. You have to eradicate it completely.” One way to eradicate it completely is to STOP preaching free speech, liberty, and democracy. START preaching PARTIAL free speech, PARTIAL liberty, and PARTIAL democracy. Only in this way, Islam can be eradicated in a region or country. Islamic speech is NOT granteed, the liberty to practice Islam is not granted. If some people of other faiths demanding the change of that rule in the name of democracy, the government should be authoritative and rule out the democracy in that case.

    • No, not at all. Freedom of speech does have limiations. You are not at liberty to shout “FIRE” in a crowded room. Or more precise: you are, but you are fully responsible for the consequenses.

      The same can apply to religion. You are free to believe anything you want. But as soon as you say something you yourself are responsible for your words and actions. You cannot hide behind some holy or unholy scripture. That’s all we have to do.

      • Well, I think we’re on (almost?) the same page in this case. Freedom of speech does have limitations equal partial free speech. Having written the article that this thread is about, if you are a President; would you propose to ban Islam?

          • The control must be explicit, using explicit name. Name your enemy, call the spade as spade. Ban Islam. Explicit.

        • Of course. In the Republic of Venice, Islam was forbidden (not the muslim as people who could stay there, it was just not allowed to build their barracks (or mosques)). It is not a religion, it is a lie against any religion. It is just a political party. And banning this political party is the only way to get along another 1000 years on the same earth with the muslims.

          You cannot kill all the wolves, but you shall not think to try to live side by side together: in the long run it will not work for sure (this is happening in France, Sweden, UK and has already hapened in Syria, North Africa, and all other culturally Hellenic lands which were within eastern Roman empire). Everybody should stay within their borders.

          Why does China not let them to preach their lies? In Arabia, they do not let Hinduism, Buddhism, Hebraism, Christianity and any other religion. And I cannot disagree with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on this: they are doing the only thing to preserve their demoniac existence.

          In the long run, a multireligious (or pagan) society will collapse (already happened in the western Roman empire before they chose to have only one state religion). If you do not recognise there is only one Truth, and think that many lies together form a good society, just wait to see what will happen next in these countries where they let the heresy to be spread: it will end up like in Babylonia. The sooner the better. Say goodbye to all these […] countries which abandoned Christ thinking they had an illuministic higher morality.

          We do not share the same standard of morality when we think that their false prophet was a perverted pedophile with a 9-year old child as wife for us, while it is the example to follow for them. They thought to fight obscurantism with the light of reason, by thinking to let their sworn enemies live within, like if it was normal. They thought they would have not be touched by the heresy, but then you have to feel insecure every day and abandoned by your motherland because it is no more yours.

          Muslims are not the bad, the bad are the useful idiots who thought to live peacefully together and letting them spread their lies on Christ.

      • By not answering, Numan, I think you have a cognitive dissonance. Anyone who recognize how moslems behave, and yet do not see that their so called free speech, liberty, democracy, or whatever will be exploited by moslems; are having cognitive dissonance. I remember once Ali Sina said if he’s president he will allow muslim, even though he wants to eradiate Islam. Later on he corrected himself (implicitly) that he will not tolerate.

        You want to use the technique “you must be responsible for the consequences” ? Well, we already see how it does not work. Ban Islam, ban Koran. That’s the solution. Anyone who allows it while recognizing Islam must be eradicated; is having cognitive dissonance.

    • It’s not a free speech issue. It’s an organisational issue. Islam (not just Islamism – a false distinction) is a terrorist organisation and needs to be banned as such. It cannot hide behind religious freedom because it’s nothing like a religion – it’s self-evidently a terror cult masquerading as a religion.

      • It’s a free speech issue. You say “Islam is a terrorist organization”. In the name of free speech, someone say “Islam is NOT a terrorist organization”. It’s your word against mine. So it is somehow a matter of free speech. Free speech must be PARTIAL, not total.

  10. “You are free to believe anything you want. But as soon as you say something you yourself are responsible for your words and actions.” That approach does not work. We already see that. You say that Islam is a cancer. It must be eradicated. But on the other hand, you don’t ban Islam; you don’t want to propose it. This is a cognitive dissonance.

Comments are closed.