Belloc’s Prophecy Bodes Ill for the West: The Muslim Challenge

According to the Wikipedia page (link below) on Hilaire Belloc, he was hostile toward the Jews. As far as I’m concerned that makes him a wise and honest man.

Back in the 1930s when the West was at or near its greatest strength, he clearly saw Islam’s rise and challenge to the West.

Lew Rockwell

GRIFFIN INTERNET SYNDICATE, OCTOBER 25, 2001 – Back in the 1930s, when white men were preparing for another round of mutual slaughter, few of them paid any attention to the Muslim world. They assumed it to be a backward region that history had long since passed by.

One man saw it differently. The great Catholic polemicist Hilaire Belloc, an Englishman of French ancestry, remembered Islam’s past and predicted, in his book The Great Heresies, that it would one day challenge the West again. As late as 1683 its armies had threatened to conquer Europe, penetrating all the way to Vienna; Belloc believed that a great Islamic revival, even in the twentieth century, was altogether possible.

Belloc saw Islam not as an alien religion, but in its origins as a Christian heresy, adopting and adapting certain Christian doctrines (monotheism, the immortality of the soul, final judgment) and rejecting others (original sin, the Incarnation and divinity of Christ, the sacraments). Its simple, rational creed had a powerful appeal to Arabs who had known only the arbitrary gods of grim pagan religions. It swept the Arab world, then made converts — and conquests — far beyond Arabia.

Islam was a militant religion from the start. Mohammed himself conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in just a few years. The new faith was torn by violent internal divisions even as it continued to spread. But spread it did, with incredible rapidity.

Christians had good reason to fear Islam, which soon conquered Spain and held it for centuries. But because Islam has little attraction for Christians, the West has generally failed to grasp its appeal for others, its profound and permanent hold on the minds of believers. Unlike the Christian West, the Muslim world has never had crises of faith like the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

Islam is a simple religion, easily understood by ordinary people. Its commandments are rigorous but few. When it conquered, its subjugated people often felt more liberated than enslaved, because it often replaced burdensome old bureaucratic governments with relatively undemanding regimes — and low taxes. As long as its authority was respected, Islamic rule was comparatively libertarian. It offered millions relief from their traditional oppression; for example, no Muslim could be a slave.

Belloc distinguishes sharply between Islam and such barbarous conquerors as the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan. The Mongols were purely destructive; they were known for slaughtering whole cities and making huge pyramids of severed heads.

Such savagery was alien to the Muslims. Where they conquered, daily life usually went on much as before and culture thrived. In many respects the Muslim world was far more civilized than Christian Europe for centuries. The West hated and dreaded Islam, but nobody would have thought of calling it backward.

That contemptuous image came much later, when modern Europe’s science, technology, and — above all — weaponry had eclipsed those of the Arabs. We are apt to forget how recently this development occurred; and, as Belloc warned, it is not irreversible.

Man, especially irreligious man, is apt to equate power and progress. Many of those who say America is “the greatest country on earth” really mean only that America has fantastic military might, capable of annihilating any other country — and some of them, at the moment, are in the mood to do some annihilating.

To the pious Muslim this attitude seems crass and barbaric. He may conclude from it that the decadent West understands only one thing: force. And would he be far wrong?

Belloc admitted that the idea of a new Muslim challenge to the West seemed “fantastic,” but only because the West was “blinded” by “the immediate past.”

Taking a longer view, he saw Islam, though inferior in material power, as having a great advantage: its religious faith was still strong, while the West was losing its religion and consequently its morale. He thought it entirely possible that Islam would catch up technologically, while he doubted that the West would undergo a spiritual revival.

Are we seeing the beginning of the fulfillment of Belloc’s prophecy? If so, the current uproar over Islamic terrorism may turn out to be a mere superficial symptom of a much larger historical drama. The West is still strong, but it is dying. Islam is still weak, but it is growing. Never mind the terrorists; check the birthrate.

###

“Belloc’s Prophecy” by Joe Sobran was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on October 25, 2001. It is one of the 117 essays in the recently-published collection, Subtracting Christianity: Essay on American Culture and Society.

Learn more about Hilaire Belloc at Wikipedia.

I Have in My Hands Absolute Proof the Holocaust is a Hoax

When people move out of the apartment complex where I’m housed they often put out good furniture, electronics, washers, dryers, beds, and so forth next to or in the dumpsters.

Last week I fished a complete set of the 1971 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica out of the dumpster. I had a 1960 edition which was destroyed by my house fire. The books saved from the dumpster are similar in appearance. I’ve posted a picture of what they look like above.

There’s around 24 volumes of dense reading in each book. They’re heavy too. I could only realistically carry a few volumes at a time from the dumpsters up the stairs to my apartment. They probably weigh about five pounds each. Taken together, there must be at least several million words or more in the set.

Volume 11 covers Halicar through Immingham.

There is no entry in this volume for the word “Holocaust.”

Following the brief entry for Holmium, the next entry is for Holography.

Encyclopedias follow alphabetical order. The entry after Holmium should be Holocaust. It’s not there.

Currently, we are told that the Holocaust was the defining event of the 20th century. We are told that we must make it up to the Jews for all eternity, even self-genociding ourselves because of our evil nature.

The Encyclopedia Britannica was the authoritative source for information for the early years of my life, and indeed for many decades, if not centuries. The cover dates the books as going back to 1768. If the Holocaust were a true, recognized historical event there would be an entry for it in the book.

My recollections of high school and college history are that the Holocaust was not taught at all.

It seems that the Holocaust hadn’t been invented yet.

Today, I’m sure that every encyclocpedia has an article for the Holocaust. It’s a big industry. There are monuments and museums.

But somehow between the 1940s and 1971, no one had yet discovered the Holocaust.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Holocaust is a work of fiction, designed to enrich Jews, protect Israel, and provide cover for the extermination of the evil white race.

If you’re inclined to disbelieve me, grab an old enclopedia when you find one and look up the term “Holocaust.” It won’t be there.

I’m not sure what year the fictional Holocaust narrative was created or who specifically created it. I suspect that it came out of someone’s fervid imagination in the latter part of the 1970s. If I come across another set of encyclopedia books from a later date, I’ll check it for an entry for the Holocaust.

Outrage Over Swastika Flag in Man’s Front Yard (Video)

Less than two minutes.

An eccentric older white gentleman is put on the defensive by a reporter: “Are you a racist?”

Published on Mar 13, 2017

Overtly displayed in a front yard on well traveled Emerson Avenue is a Nazi flag. Neighbors are angry, but the man who lives there doesn’t care.

Hollywood Hatchet Jobs: New Film Portrays Modern Day Joan of Arc as Alt-Right Christian Terrorist

Why didn’t I think of this?

These Hollyweird people are geniuses. Geniuses, I tell you.

I can find no details about the new Joan of Arc film, but it’s easy to see that it’s not going to be friendly to Christians or to the alt-right.

Excerpt from tracking-board.com

Orange Is the New Black star Taryn Manning has signed on to topline REGARDING THE CASE OF JOAN OF ARC, an indie movie from director Matthew Wilder, who recently wrote the Nicolas Cage-Willem Dafoe movie Dog Eat Dog.

Wilder co-wrote the film with Michael McClung, and the script is directly based on the transcripts of Joan of Arc’s trial.

In this new retelling of the Joan myth, Joan (Manning) is an alt-right Christian terrorist being put on trial in a place like Guantanamo Bay. A virgin who hears the voice of God commanding her, Joan has pulled together a mostly rural following to cleanse America of its decadent urban sensibility and make our federal government Christian again — and is willing to attack federal buildings and employees to make it happen. A military tribunal has received orders from above that Joan must die — but first they must paint her as a bad apple, since her followers are now strong enough to topple the American government.

Regarding the Case of Joan of Arc is being produced by Gena Vazquez, Luis Sinibaldi and Wilder under the aegis of Vazquez’s new shingle Monte Carlo Pictures, which is also gearing up to produce a feature about the origins of ultimate fighting.

The film begins shooting on July 11 in Los Angeles and is expected to premiere in early 2018.

And so we have a double hatchet job. (((Hollyweird))) smears Christians and conservative voters all in one movie.

These people are garbage to me.

Link to transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc

“All White People Need To Leave America” Guy Gets Schooled By Tiny Toese And Myself

A noisy protest leads to a lot of worthless rhetoric on the streets of Seattle, Washington in this video. It’s a disappointment. Contrary to the title, nobody gets “schooled.” It’s basically about 10 minutes of morons arguing back and forth about whether whites should go back to Europe.

Apparently, Seattle has a significant number of idiots who have nothing better to do than fixate spew sh*t about deporting evil whitey.

From the youtube information box:

Published on Jun 26, 2017
This crap is beyond ridiculous! Do they not understand that America was Conquered!?! Like EVERY OTHER piece of land on the planet!!

Among the youtube comments was this:

“There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or
that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.”

Mark Twain

and this:

ural ~ You’ve never heard of Ghengis Khan and his conquering Mongol hordes? They took a lot of land from whitey in the Middle Ages. The brown and black Muslim hordes are taking over much of Europe as we speak. White South Africa is basically lost. HOWEVER, the non-white scum are only prevailing because the corrupt despicable white race-traitors in power are allowing them to prevail.

More:

I’m native American, and the white man didn’t take the land from native Americans…native Americans took land from each other, and the white man took some of the land that was stolen by other tribes that took it from other tribes…shit the black hills was take 3 times before the white man took it, so who does it really belong to…just like ppl say we took Texas from the Mexicans, yep, that is what happens when u fight and win a war, u take territory

The U.S. is not “native land.” The raw dirt and rock of a continental landmass does not have cultural identity.
The Stone Age primitives who peopled the continent before White settlement were divided into 500 separate
nations who spoke dozens of different languages and, at given moment, were usually at war with most of
their neighbors. In no way, shape, or form did these 500 tribes form a single country, let alone AMERICA.

The very first Native Americans were Paleolithic Solutreans from Ice Age France and Iberia, this can be clearly seen in the archeological evidence of the identical spearhead techniques used by the Clovis culture and the Solutrean culture. Furthermore the Clovis spearhead finds were most prominent along the the coasts of the northeast Atlantic seaboard of the US and atrophied as they made there way across the midwest through river systems and do not even appear in the north west or anywhere near the Bering land bridge.

Black Professor Refutes Claims that Confederates Were Traitors

I learned some history by reading this piece by Dr. Walter Williams, who works as an economics professor at conservative George Mason University.

Lew Rockwell

My “Rewriting American History” column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let’s look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can’t label Confederate generals as traitors.

Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.” Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.

During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

America’s first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. “The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.” The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.” The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.

Today is the 75th Anniversary of D-Day

Europe is handing over the keys to nonwhite invaders. The men who died in World War II died in vain. They fought a (((banker’s))) war. They were cannon fodder.

The photos above were posted by @AmyMek on Twitter.

A short D-Day video with 2.5 million views. Three minutes:

A long D-Day video with over 3 million views. An hour and a half: