After having reached Palestine and having slaughtered numerous Mohamedans who eventually rose up to drive the Crusaders into the direction of which they came from, the Crusaders of the Teutonic Knights decided afterwards to turn on their Pagan Aryan brothers in Lithuania

After having reached Palestine and having slaughtered numerous Mohamedans who eventually rose up to drive the Crusaders into the direction of which they came from, the Crusaders of the Teutonic Knights decided afterwards to turn on their Pagan Aryan brothers in Lithuania

Also...

The Crusaders brought distinctly Levantine habits of mind back into the European heartland, not least among them mobsterism and a ramped-up taste for secret societies and the behind-the-scenes scullduggery that comes with them.

Reference: Just about anything on the Knights Templars that pays close attention to their financial racketeering. Raving atheists have been known to think kind thoughts of Christendom for putting those hucksters out of business.

Thanks for your insight!

I never considered the Crusades that way: After a very succesful First Crusade, the following crusades were led mostly against Aryan Brothers: The Lithuanians, the Prussians, the Czechs, the Frisians, the Cathars, the Eastern Romans, the protestants.

Crusades started as progress. The eastern coast of the Mediterranian Sea fell in one swoop and more important the people that rejoice in the murder of Jesus Christ were exterminated. This all happened around 1100. But then, for some strange and still unexplored reason, the Crusades were diverted against Aryans. I wonder who was behind all that.

One could say they were one of the first WNs-turned-race-traitors.

Please, if all those "gallant knights" remained in Europe they been romping about destroying crops and etc and would have cut each other's throats just as well as they cut Mahometan ones. If you understand anything about White men it's that we love to fight with each other. IN point of fact the idea of the Crusades was a great one and it was one of the significant events that helped form the racial consciousness that we today call "White." Do you think that Franks sitting around gnawing on joints of meat in Languedoc called each other "White?" No, but if outside the tent in Palestine there were thousands of non-Whites you can be sure that they noticed the difference.

Interesting side note, in those days all Europeans were called "Franks" by the Muslims. In our language of course "frank" also means "honest" which I think is a fine testament to one of our racial virtues, integrity.

Finally, dont forget on the way in 1096 they liquidated the Jews of the Rhineland. Moreover, when Geoffrey of Bouillon first breached the walls of Jerusalem, they found themselves in the Jews' quarter. In those days the resident Jews were of course on the side of the established power the Muslims. Well Geoffrey repaid the Jew in blood. The story goes that Jewish blood ran so thick in the streets it was up to their ankles.

http://www.baruchhashem.com/resources/ibjchper.html

"For example, during the Crusades, Christian hordes swarmed across Europe toward the Holy Land, slaughtering the Jews as they advanced. One such incident happened in Esslingen, Germany. There the Crusaders locked all Jews in the village inside the local synagogue and burned it down. The Crusade period was a very dark time in Jewish history. "


HMM I'd have thought a few of you would have thought kindly of such a "Crusade." LOL

Please, if all those "gallant knights" remained in Europe they been romping about destroying crops and etc and would have cut each other's throats just as well as they cut Mahometan ones. If you understand anything about White men it's that we love to fight with each other. IN point of fact the idea of the Crusades was a great one and it was one of the significant events that helped form the racial consciousness that we today call "White." Do you think that Franks sitting around gnawing on joints of meat in Languedoc called each other "White?" No, but if outside the tent in Palestine there were thousands of non-Whites you can be sure that they noticed the difference.

Interesting side note, in those days all Europeans were called "Franks" by the Muslims. In our language of course "frank" also means "honest" which I think is a fine testament to one of our racial virtues, integrity.

Finally, dont forget on the way in 1096 they liquidated the Jews of the Rhineland. Moreover, when Geoffrey of Bouillon first breached the walls of Jerusalem, they found themselves in the Jews' quarter. In those days the resident Jews were of course on the side of the established power the Muslims. Well Geoffrey repaid the Jew in blood. The story goes that Jewish blood ran so thick in the streets it was up to their ankles.

http://www.baruchhashem.com/resources/ibjchper.html

"For example, during the Crusades, Christian hordes swarmed across Europe toward the Holy Land, slaughtering the Jews as they advanced. One such incident happened in Esslingen, Germany. There the Crusaders locked all Jews in the village inside the local synagogue and burned it down. The Crusade period was a very dark time in Jewish history. "


HMM I'd have thought a few of you would have thought kindly of such a "Crusade." LOL

A strange factoid, considering the Jews and Muslims always got along famously pre-Zionism: I read it was jewish converts to Christianity who first started the whole idea of pilgrimages to the Holy land, but since Christians were mistreated by the locals there, the idea that a Crusade to take over the Holy Land was born.

War for the most part is a rackett the religion angle was the cloak for the war. Just like "terrorism" and they "hate our freedom" are the cloak for the war in the middle east today.

One of the "worldly" reasons for the crusades was a dispute between gold traders in Constantinople and Venice... Ultimately the crusades were failed attempts to consolidate the Roman Empire.

----------
"The rift between the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church was perpetuated. Even 250 years later, when the Turks were besieging Constantinople, one of the City’s last great statesmen remarked “Better the Sultan’s turban than the cardinal’s hat”. The Venetians appointed one of their own as the new Patriarch of Constantinople, without even consulting the Pope."

and also:

“Constantinople had been for centuries the strongest bulwark of defence against Asia. The men of the West had every interest to maintain and strengthen it. Instead of doing so they virtually let loose Asia upon Europe.”

and finally:

Gregorius later wrote of the Latin Empire “ . . . it fell after a miserable existence of fifty-seven years, leaving behind it no other trace than destruction and anarchy. That deformed chivalrous feudal state of the Latins belongs to the most worthless phenomena of history.”

http://www.geocities.com/egfrothos/FourthCrusade.html

Frank comes from the Franks, i.e., Germanic French. A synecdoche, rather like the word 'Arab' as applied to Middle Easterners (the vast majority of whom are no more Arab than the Spanish are Gothic or Swebian.)

The Crusades were both a success and a failure. They were a success in that they expanded the borders of Western civilization. They were a failure in the sense that they ultimately weakened the Byzantine Empire which had for centuries served as a barrier to the expansion of Islam into Eastern Europe.

>>>Please, if all those "gallant knights" remained in Europe they been romping about destroying crops and etc and would have cut each other's throats just as well as they cut Mahometan ones.

This is an excellent point. In fact, many historians today see the Crusades as an outgrowth of the Peace of God movement. In other words, the papacy pragmatically rejected the traditional Christian aversion towards warfare and legitimized it so long as it was directed towards some 'other'. The goal was fourfold:

A.) to continue the process of asserting papal leadership over Western monarchs, part of the Gregorian Revolution

B.) take advantage of the threat posed by the Turks to assert papal leadership over the Eastern Christians

C.) to redirect the bloodlust of Europeans into conquering non-Christians and non-Westerners, into expanding the West

D.) impose peace upon the West itself.

Now sit here and think of the consequences this held for Western civilization. Sicily and Spain (for the most part) were conquered from the Muslims. The vast libraries of these places fell into our hands. Knowledge lost to the West since antiquity, especially the works of Plato, began to recirculate within Western Europe. The peace that spread throughout Europe and the penetration of traders into the lands of Islam led to a revival of commerce. This directly led to the 12th century Renaissance and the revival of learning within Western Europe. When Byzantium itself fell in 1453, all sorts of books from its libraries managed to end up in the West. This only reinforced Western Europe's cultural revival.

>>>Please, if all those "gallant knights" remained in Europe they been romping about destroying crops and etc and would have cut each other's throats just as well as they cut Mahometan ones.

This is an excellent point. In fact, many historians today see the Crusades as an outgrowth of the Peace of God movement. In other words, the papacy pragmatically rejected the traditional Christian aversion towards warfare and legitimized it so long as it was directed towards some 'other'. The goal was fourfold:

A.) to continue the process of asserting papal leadership over Western monarchs, part of the Gregorian Revolution

B.) take advantage of the threat posed by the Turks to assert papal leadership over the Eastern Christians

C.) to redirect the bloodlust of Europeans into conquering non-Christians and non-Westerners, into expanding the West

D.) impose peace upon the West itself.

Now sit here and think of the consequences this held for Western civilization. Sicily and Spain (for the most part) were conquered from the Muslims. The vast libraries of these places fell into our hands. Knowledge lost to the West since antiquity, especially the works of Plato, began to recirculate within Western Europe. The peace that spread throughout Europe and the penetration of traders into the lands of Islam led to a revival of commerce. This directly led to the 12th century Renaissance and the revival of learning within Western Europe. When Byzantium itself fell in 1453, all sorts of books from its libraries managed to end up in the West. This only reinforced Western Europe's cultural revival.

Er, yep! If I could have said that myself I would have! Very eloquent explanation of my thought, exactly.