What makes me sad is that over the centuries hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of brave men died successfully protecting the West against the invasion of Muslims. Yet, in the last thirty years or so, our governments have essentially surrendered to Islam and turned places like London, Malmo (Sweden), the Twin Cities, the Paris suburbs, and other Western cities into strongholds of Islam. From which, unless Westerners and Muslims both repent, it looks like the Islamic invasion may succeed because of the West’s moral and intellectual decline.
There’s been a lot of online banter about both Churchill and the Crusades.
My main response is that it is amazing how many people want to judge history based on modern events and perspectives. We have seen this recently with the American founding, the Civil War, etc. And now with Churchill.
Was Churchill an imperialist? Absolutely. And that was wrong. But at the time it counted most, Churchill fought against German imperialism, going to the defense of smaller countries to keep them from being swallowed up by the Third Reich. His actions ultimately led to the demise of the British Empire, which no longer had the men or wealth to stay whole. Churchill’s actions were the opposite of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s response to Soviet aggression. He abandoned much of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire. And used the war to expand the American empire. Historian Darryl Cooper is wrong to call Churchill the “villain” of WWII using his revisionist history.
On to the Crusades. Apparently, some in the church are using the Crusades as a motivational tool to get young men to run from the feminized version of men being taught in much of our culture. This has led some to suggest that using as models men who led many men, women, and children to their deaths in the name of Holy War might not be best for our young men today.
The Crusades are a mixed bag. Much of what happened in the Crusades can be laid squarely at the feet of popes who used them to gain power and wealth.