The Reconquest

Anthropology tells us that early modern humans slowly populated what is now sub-Saharan Africa and then began to migrate out into the rest of the world. Whether this was out of curiosity, the search for food or population pressure is unknown, but it was probably some combination of all three. The most likely route was along the western coast of the Red Sea and then into the Eastern Mediterranean. From there, humans slowly fanned out across the globe. It’s all speculation, but that’s the logical route out of Africa.

The point here is the first wave of human migration was south to north. Humans appear to have made it as far north as Siberia and Scandinavia before changes in climate forced people back south again. There are some who think that the populations to the north had acquired better cognitive and maybe even physical tools that allowed them to migrate south and displace the populations in the more temperate zones. The changes in climate had the effect of improving the human populations in Asia and Europe.

That may be debatable, but what is not debated is that large scale human migrations change both the invaded and the invader. The people being conquered are either massacred or bred out by the winning tribes. On the other hand, the invading people tend to borrow things from the conquered people, including genetics from the female line. The Irish say the Vikings took the best looking women with them to Iceland, which is why Icelandic women are some of the most beautiful in the world.

A good example of this may be Islam. Historians have assumed Islam grew out of the polytheistic religions of Arabia in the late 6th century. While the details of Mohamed’s life are not clear, it has generally been accepted that he was a real person, who lived around Mecca in the 6th century. It has been assumed that Islam was an Arab response to the growth of Judaism and various Christian sects. In time, Islam spread through the Middle East, as the Arabs conquered the region.

There’s some interesting revisionism of the origins of Islam and the accuracy of the alleged Arab conquests. This New English Review article from a few years back is a nice summary of it. The archaeological evidence suggests that Islam was a Persian implementation of a Jewish-Christian sect that disappeared after the Council of Nicea in 325. Persian coins from the period, for example, when Mohamed was allegedly leading the Islamification of Arabia, have Christian symbols on them, in addition to Persian symbols.

The revisionist think Eastern Christians migrated into Arabia and Persia. In time, their form of Christianity evolved into a monotheistic religion of the Persians. According to this line of thinking, the Persians actually conquered the region and spread this hybrid Christianity that would evolve into Islam. It was only later, when the Arabs took over for the fading Persians, that the tale of Mohamed was created, as well as the story of the Arab conquests. Islam as an off-shoot of a now extinct form of Christianity is not implausible.

What’s interesting about both approaches to the origins of Islam is the base assumption that it filled a void that existed within Arab populations. Christianity and Judaism were the dominant religions of the Near East, but those people were the hated rivals of the Arabs and Persians. A need for a unifying faith to compete with the monotheism of their rivals was probably understood by Persians and Arab rulers. Religion has always been the business of kings, so it is reasonable to think they encouraged this development.

It’s also interesting that Islam most likely evolved from a mix of Judaism, Christianity and other ancient religions. What may have started out as a Jewish heresy was transformed by the people into a religion that was useful to them. Put another way, Christianity made its way into a less than fertile land, but adapted and mutated until it was something that could thrive. The fact that Islam has not spread too far past the boundaries of the people who created it suggests something about religion in general and Islam in particular.

When you look at what is happening to Europe, there are some similarities to the Arabs and Persians in late antiquity. The attempts to replace Christianity with the sterile bureaucratic super state have largely failed. Falling birth rates and an unwillingness to resist invasion are signs of a people who have no purpose. The average European today lives for carnal pleasures and the acquisition of goods. There’s a void in the center of European life and perhaps Islam is what is going to fill it.

It could very well be that the Muslim invasion of Europe is the end of a cycle that was started by Emperor Constantine when he made Christianity the religion of his empire and bound the Church to Rome. The losers at Nicea wandered off into the desert, presumably to be forgotten, but instead, their decedents are back to reclaim Europe. Like the people who migrated north and then returned ahead of the ice sheets, the Muslims are coming into Europe armed with a purpose, against which the locals have no answer.

Alternatively, maybe the people in charge of Europe, away from the public and the press, know that their people need a religion. Maybe like the Persian king Chosroes II, who historians are sure practiced a form of Christianity, the leaders of Europe are inviting Islam into their lands, even if it means taking in Muslims. After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury seem pretty keen on Islam. It’s unlikely that there is a secret mosque in Brussels for the EU rulers, but maybe they think some form of Islam would not be such a bad thing.

Regardless, we may be seeing the start of a reconquest, of sorts. Instead of Christianity making a come back in the West, it is the forgotten version, the one many think was the first and therefore the correct version of Christianity. Islam as practiced today will never work in Europe, but it could certainly evolve into something that does work. Maybe what’s happening is that the old original form of Christianity is coming back, but first as its foreign incarnation. In time, it will evolve into something the West can use.

99 thoughts on “The Reconquest

  1. A bit off-topic, but…it occurred to me recently that the sorry state of sub-Saharan Africa may be owing to the fact that it is the energetic, ambitious and inquisitive peoples who tend to wander, to seek out the new and different, to wonder what lies over the horizon and make shift to find out.
    The dull, the complacent, the incurious and unmotivated – in a word, the stupid – tend to stay put and live with what they have without putting effort into bettering, or even changing, their state of existence. Sub-Saharan Africans are simply the left-behinds of human development. It certainly would explain a lot of the regions intractable problems.

  2. I am almost 100% certain Z-man read Emmet Scott’s “Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: History of a Contoversy”. Scott postulates than Muslim conquests, entire Golden Age Age of Islam never really occurred and were the work of Persians from 610AD on. Arabs only joined Persians later. Probably most of Islamic history is fake, rewritten by academics on Saudi dole.

    Years ago, History Channel showed a German program ( but showed it only once) where a German scholar credibly suggested that parts of Koran are much older than Muhammad and despite being, as claimed a direct word of Allah. they showed much variety and many discrepancies. I am sure this show would lead to protests and beheadings if it was broadcast again.

    • Günter Lüling is credited with being a founder of the revisionist school with regards to Islam. The Germans have pushed the idea of the mythical Mohamed and the Islam as a Christian off-shoot idea. Among the strong scholars of Islam, the thinking is all in this direction, but they keep a low profile for obvious reasons.

  3. Fatima, Portugal, October 13, 1917 — the reason for the Muslims flooding into Europe, unfortunatelt

  4. The EU leaders want Islam in their nations, as it will dumb the population back to the 7th century, and make them easy to rule. Christianity raises the IQ of a nation’s people. If you don’t think so, compare the progress on the West over that of the Middle East. The former built cathedrals, created beautiful music, and landed on the Moon. The latter can’t even make its own small arms, but must rely on weapons manufactured from other nations.

  5. What I have seen so far, is that the muslim world doesn’t value education, kindness, restraint, other people’s values, peace, career, music, art, dance, beer, or anything else that makes life worth living. Perhaps that is part of the reason so many of them are so willing to die for virtually nothing, but hatred for others …. us!

    Their lives appear to be not worth living, so heaven looks like a good deal with all the sex awaiting them.

    I don’t see anything there that civilized decent humans can use for anything good.

    If and when Islam owns Europe … what then? Will they build schools and factories and develop new and better energy, continue with medical research, invent new shit that improves life on Earth?

    Will them allow young people to have sex without a beheading to follow? Will them change to a peaceful culture?

    Not likely.

    The European elite trash is doing a suicide while responsible to mass death to follow. They are getting what they deserve. I am actually enjoying the show at this point.

    Once the white liberals are all gone, Islam can move onto China. My guess is that the Chinese are not nearly as stupid or guilt ridden as the Euro weenies ,… they will make short work of the bearded barbarians. Now that is show I’d like to see.

  6. I look forward to the Germans re-energized by Islam.

    But mostly I look forward to the infinite regret of the Arabs and Persians at the advent of Islamized Germans, complete with schisms, wildly enthusiastic German Islamic fanatics, the Fourth Thousand Year Reich, colorful shows at the rebuilt Nuremberg arena, etc., etc.

  7. This is becoming my favorite blog, not only for the content but also the comments & commenters.

  8. Religions that persist over time do so because they instill memetic behaviors in a given population that enhance their ability to survive and thrive within the environment they inhabit. As the population thrives, so does the enabling religion. This is self-reinforcing feedback.

    Islam is persisting because the model it uses is very beneficial to reproduction. Specifically, strong patriarchy enhances fecundity because women are relegated to the primary role of childbearing and deviation is not permitted.

    • Iran has a TFR of 1.7. The pattern in the Middle East seems to be that upticks in religious fervor result in decreases in fertility.

      • Women in Iran have higher status and educational attainment compared to those in other Muslim countries.

      • What is the TFR of the Saudis? My guess is that Iran is seeing a downtick in religious fervor (many Iranians are not too hot for the apocalyptic Islam of the 13th Imam types that are in power), and Saudi Arabia is on a permanent (imposed) uptick in religious fervor.

        • 2.76. Iranian TFR nosedived after the revolution. It was 6.0 when the Shah was toppled, ticked up a a bit as everyone celebrated and then steadily declined. Across the Middle East you see the same pattern. As Islamic fervor ticked up, TFR ticked down. Median age in Iran is pushing 30 now. The math says Iran is headed for serious trouble demographically. Rich countries can get old and still stagger on, but poor countries cannot afford to get old.

          • Then the Saudi TFR is falling, too. Maybe the upticks and downticks in TFR are related to the outlook for the future–relative to what has happened in the recent past. In Africa, the TFR is high, and the outlook isn’t all that good, but the recent past is even worse. Relative upticks and downticks, not the situation as a whole.

          • We also notice that both countries had a significant corresponding fall in infant mortality rate over the same period.

  9. Pingback: The Reconquest | IowaDawg: Posting Only What I Like

  10. The Persian Shia Muslims and the Arab Sunni Muslims are quite distinct. The Persians have a generally higher IQ, and sects such as the Nazari actually embrace some western concepts such as the accumulation of wealth and (some) women’s rights, for example.

    The Arabs, on the other hand, have traditionally practiced a highly tribal and predatory version of Islam. Even the African Muslims often consider the “Arabs” stupid and dangerous. Only the discovery of large amounts of oil on their tribal lands have saved them from some sort of internecine self-immolation (so far).

    Any chance for the Western culture to reasonably accommodate or absorb a major Islamic influence means that the influence will probably need to be Persian, Shia, and likely Nazarian. The Arab Sunni invasion is a cross of gangbanging and a death cult.

  11. Thanks for this, it led me to a few hours of reading on early Christianity and the impacts that heterodox Christians could have had after the Council of Nicea.

  12. Despite having read the article several times I still have no idea what you mean by this:

    ” it is the forgotten version, the one many think was the first and therefore the correct version of Christianity.”

    What is that? The weird theory about Persians inventing Islam? If Islam reconquers Europe it won’t be the revival of an imaginary ancient pre-Arab syncratic version Islam+Christianity, it will be the fairly fundamentalist Sunni variation that is on the rise world-wide, and is powering the most fervent believers, including the Jihadis.

    In general I feel like this article would be improved by breaking it into three or four.

    If you want to expound an a (probably bogus) alternate history of Islam, that’s a good topic.

    If you want to expound on the empty hearts and wombs of Europe leading to Islamism in a few generations, join the party. But you will be unlikely to surpass the excellent novel Submission written by the French writer Michel Houellebecq..

    If you want to explain the secret, lost original and better Christianity (which I sense is the real topic dying to get out here), then do so without all the windup.

    • I’ve always thought the Islamic tradition about its origins very plausible. Mohammed probably was a real guy who united the Arabs under his rule after years of raiding caravans with a handful of relatives. Many leaders have developed their fighting knowledge in raids and lesser guerrilla actions before achieving greater military power.

      Mohammed’s first wife Khadija was a Christian and Islam was first regarded by Eastern (Nestorian), Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians as a Christian heresy.

      There were many Jews living in Arabia during Mohammed’s time such as the Banu Quraiza. Mohammed, in the process of ethnically cleansing them, seemed to have picked up many of their dietary practices and copied Levitical laws. Jews of that era have a low view of women that continues to this day amongst their Orthodox. Mohammed obviously agreed with and amplified many Jewish laws and traditions.

      Finally, there’s the issue of polygamy and child marriage. Most cult leaders are about three things: sex, money, and power. The latter two Mohammed gained through the sword and taxation. The former is an obvious benefit of the latter. Mohammed, like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, liked girls and a lot of them. Cult leaders are usually perverts.

      I think the development of Persian Shi’a Islam happened exactly as Muslim tradition holds: some of MOhammed’s closest men didn’t want Ali in charge so he fled to Persia. The Persians do not have a high opinion of Arabs and so they obviously would not adopt Sunni Islam.

  13. Let’s see if I can get hyperlinks to work today…

    Thanks for the New English Review article, Zman.

    The article should probably mention Crossroads to Islam, especially for Nevo’s research on early Islamic coins. (He comes to the contrary conclusion: that the Caliphate is Byzantium’s monster spawn, not the Persians’. My guess is that they both parented the beast. The Byzantine federati became the Sunnis and the Persian federati became the Shiites.)

    You can’t write about the Ebionite/Nazorean origins hypothesis without including Robert Eisenman (he’s the guy whose tireless efforts got the Dead Sea Scrolls released into the public domain). Eisenman is tough to read, but I found him fascinating, mostly because he is one of those guys who is so brilliant that he blinds himself and can never quite make it to the prize. Eisenman is also important for his theories about Paul’s role in Hellenizing the Nazorean/Ebionite faith into what we now call Christianity… very pertinent to your post today.

    Finally, Patricia Crone’s first shot at questioning the sunnah’s (body of Islamic tradition) founding myth should be mentioned as well.

    You’re right, Zman. If mainline Christianity and Second International Socialism can’t get Europe to breed, then something or someone will eventually come along that will. Don’t write off evangelical Christianity, the Mormons, or one of the other Christian sects. I think that they are still in the game.

    • the problem in all the countries with low birth rates, is the high cost of family formation, coupled with lack of long term economic security. if they weren’t importing so many parasitical muslims, the situation would have started abating itself by now.

  14. Actually, Europe is *already* dominated by a non-Christian religion, namely Marxism in all its mutant forms, the latest being Cultural Marxism, aka Feminism. What they all have in common with Islam is the idea that man (being deliberately provocative) *can* redeem both himself and society by virtuous works. Also in common, is looting, mass murder and putting themselves in complete control – all attributes of satan.

  15. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    Something doesn’t make sense about that “out of Africa” theory. It never has made sense. Even from the 6th grade and all the Leaky fossil evidence I was taught it seemed too pat.
    If the western world truly came out of Africa, why is that place always maintained it’s stone age civilization? Why did it not evolve along similar paths as the assumed migrational humans who resided in the northern hemisphere all did? Africa is as rich or richer in every resource man uses. It’s climate, ecology, biology, is as rich and diversified as any place on Earth.
    I find it hard to accept as gospel of “science” looking at what the indignant peoples of Africa are, their civilization, that I as a western man and all that has transpired through human history of the west, I came from that gene pool.
    Something don’t add up.
    I always suspected there was another branch of man which evolved and spread out originating somewhere in the northern hemisphere. The evidence either has not been found, it has but not recognized as evidence, or like we are finding with so much science, it is fake.

    • I’m not a big fan of evolution. I see it as more of a secular religion than a science. That said, I think the lack of navigable rivers in sub-Saharan Africa has a lot to do with the lack of development there. When you look at the Nile and the Fertile Crescent the common denominator is navigable rivers that support agriculture and trade. Greece didn’t have navigable rivers, but was inhabited by people who knew how to travel by boat and grow stuff. Same for the Phoenicians, Romans, Carthaginians.
      If you look at the riverine topography of Africa you see them originate at high altitudes and drop fast with dangerous rapids. Also one reason why they lend themselves so readily to hydroelectric exploitation. Lack of communication, trade and mobility hampered growth of wealth as well as mind.

      • Well done.
        I also inveigh food sources-
        Southern Hemisphere, tuber cultivation, small villages in moderate climate
        Northern Hemishere, grain cultivation-
        Storage temples, scribal administration, army tax collectors, water empires in winter climate

        • Oops, forgot- tropical disease led to strict, frequent language barriers
          Disease did not travel, but neither did ideas

      • Look at Eskimo peoples. That is a hardy race with extremes no others peoples acclimated to. They had navigable riverine resources. Our like the American Indian tribes like in NH, they used north and south flowing rivers as their highways and food sources.

    • “Why did it not evolve along similar paths as the assumed migrational humans who resided in the northern hemisphere all did? ”

      Different selection pressures. Africa is the environment Africans adapted to. Those who left Africa began to adapt to the different environments they lived in. This is old ground that you’re totally unaware of. Basic stuff. You don’t have the slightest knowledge or understanding of the ideas you think you’re arguing against. You’re just making up crazy stories and refuting them in silly ways. Talking to yourself in the corner.

      I’m familiar with your ideas and they’re laughable garbage. You are not familiar with the ideas you object to. You fundamentally do not know what those ideas are, and you refuse to learn.

      You and I should be on the same side.

      • …there may be many environments in Africa, and there are manifold local adaptations to those environments, but those who left went somewhere else that was different.

      • Telling someone his ideas are laughable garbage and then saying that the two of you should be on the same side is not very persuasive.

      • Well thank you, and fuck you too.
        Your hateful attitude about my personal observations is still no substitute for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
        You prove nothing but that your an ass.

    • The “out of Africa” theory doesn’t mean evolution stopped for those who left. Neanderthals are thought to have evolved in southeast Europe – with larger brains than modern humans.

      And notice you don’t hear much about Cro-Magnon Man any more? Those early Europeans with significantly larger brains?

    • Most of the confusion comes from the miscegenation of Leakey and Old Testament that “the black man is the oldest.”

      The opposite holds- Congo Negroids (were) the youngest variant, only 15,000 years old.
      So recent they have no Neanderthal DNA- too recent, no contact.

      Their development of an extra quadraceps muscle and increased testosterone meant they were faster, more aggressive, and more sexually aggressive, replacing (wiping out) the older KhoiSan Capoids in short order.

      Perhaps that lack of Neanderthal is why they don’t really mix well with the rest.
      They don’t act right.

      Watching “Raised Hip Hop: Atlanta” is like watching friggin’ aliens from another planet.

    • Agree. Something just don’t add up. There is a White Swan event we are not aware of. Or two or three. After one hundred and fifty years Darwin’s bold theory failed every scientific test. Einstein’s was proven in thirteen years–and of the two which was by far the more bizarre? That Cro-Magnon should rather suddenly appear, and Asians, and no less the remarkable Neanderthal, is a great mystery not wishing to be solved. Especially not through the common law deity of Evolution.

      • I separate “little e” and “big E” evolution.

        Little “e” is demonstrated all the time – bigger chickens, faster race horses, etc…

        Big “E” is way harder to explain – a new species, usually different chromosome count, may not be able to reproduce with the former species. That’s where Darwin’s theory breaks apart.

      • There is that, the unknown unknowns, and the unknown unknown unknowns, that seem to come out of nowhere like black swans and create a science paradigm.

    • “If the western world truly came out of Africa, why is that place always maintained it’s stone age civilization? Why did it not evolve along similar paths as the assumed migrational humans who resided in the northern hemisphere all did?”

      This topic came up recently on another site, and I since pondered it. I think the northern climates were more challenging, and evolution favored those who could think and adapt. (Warning: sweeping generalizations follow).

      Africa straddles the equator, and for the most part, the climate is mild. Animal migrations aside, food is relatively available year-round.

      Up north, the more variable climate tries to kill you, especially winter. You have to learn how to keep warm, build snug shelters, how to preserve food for lean times. Europe lacked the vast herds of animals as found in Africa, so you had to hunt smarter to chase down less meat.

      Thus, I think the north’s more challenging climate favored those who could think and adapt. Hence, smarter humans arose there. Africa, by comparison, imposed no such impetus to become smarter. (I warned you about sweeping generalizations).

  16. ” Islam as practiced today will never work in Europe, but it could certainly evolve into something that does work. Maybe what’s happening is that the old original form of Christianity is coming back, but first as its foreign incarnation. In time, it will evolve into something the West can use.”

    Historically religions do adapt to the people and circumstances they exist in. But in the past distance and even isolation helped things along. We don’t have that anymore. Can a new form of an existing religion, in this case Islam, come into existence when technology allows for the original to exercise control over distance? In the past for instance, Indonesia (among other places) was known for having a type of Islam that was moderate in comparison to the Arabian version but a glance at the news show that this is going the way of the dodo. Can a new French Islamic branch gain any traction when anything they implement will be legislated against by the Imams at Al Azhar University in Egypt? Can a new German Islam be founded when the head of Turkey or Iran can denounce it in real time and Saudi Arabia can bury it under a mountain of money?

    At best maybe there would be a schism between the old and new but all that accomplishes is add another faction into the Sunni/Shiia mix and extend that conflict across a larger area and bigger population.

    • I’ve always suspected that Islam “worked” in the highly tribal Middle East because each tribe could have their special flavor of Islam that made them Allah’s favorite. We are told that Islam comes in two flavors, but that’s not true at all. Within the Sunni and Shia traditions, there are sub-groups and traditions that are attached to regions and tribes.

      Christianity in Europe eventually became entangled in national identity, despite the best efforts of the Church and even the secular rulers. By the 17th century everyone had their own dashboard Jesus. A personal religion like Islam may be well suited for a people searching for a source of legitimacy.

      • It is all kinds of things wrapped together. It’s also cultural and political. The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches tend to be more legalistic because that is the nature of the part of Europe where they developed. As you move further East, the people culturally operate in a less regimented way and more on instinct. The Eastern religions reflect the people.

        Politically, it depends on who your friends are an who your enemies are, nationally speaking. If your friends and allies are the Syrian tribes that are Muslim, chances are you’re going to be Muslim too.

        My brother has a good friend from medical school who is Palestinian Muslim but went to a Catholic School. From a big picture standpoint, he didn’t see too much difference between the two. Yes, they have different rituals and different people they worship, but from a big picture level they were both the same to him.

      • “A personal religion like Islam may be well suited for a people searching for a source of legitimacy.”

        But can they still personalize it given centralization caused by technology? Islam is a much more legalistic religion than Christianity; in the past scholars on the ground could have issued ruling that would attempt the religion to the situation. But now if you aren’t sure, you can just email the Imam at some well respected but usually Middle Eastern based university and have them lay out the standard line for you. And that is without considering that the Islamic jurists who set themselves up in the new European territories won’t be Saudi funded and educated to begin with.

        • The Baptists seem to have figured this out to a great degree. I’ve known more than a few storefront preachers, with some strange ideas about Christianity, who had vibrant flocks. The good vibrant, not the bad vibrant. Early Anglo-Saxon Christianity was a dog’s breakfast of crazy ideas.

          My impression with Islam is each mosque has a great deal of latitude. Without a central authority, it will always be changing based on circumstance.

  17. Spandrell, at The bloody Shovel blog, might agree with this. Or at least it corresponds with his frequent remarks that the west needs a new religion.

    It also fits with the fictional world offered by Houellebecq a few years ago for a future France, and in the pop fiction series “Prayers for the Assassin” an Islamic America is outlined.

    All of it amounts to the need for something to fill the void and Islam being it.

    I occasionally see the future as a contest between Islam and whatever one might call the emergent religion of feminism, gender fluidity and consumer neoliberalism, which grows more fanatical by the hour in some quarters. Vagina idols for worship are not far off.

    On the history- the general description of Islam as a Jewish and/or Christian heresy is quite old and plausible. It’s almost inarguable from a certain point of view, since both religions were present for centuries in western Arabia [Judaism for MANY centuries].

    This particular version of events introduces elements new to me. But it could find a place within what we thought we knew- Persia under the Sassanids did have a monotheism [sort-of]- this was the only age in which Zoroastrianism was actually a Persian state religion in the form we later came to know it [it hadn’t quite gelled under the Achaemenids a millennium before]. Persia also hosted exile Christian churches outside the empire like the Nestorians and others, plus there was the separate monotheism of Manichaeism, which had elements of all the others or similarities at least. Most of these are with us still and Manichaeism lasted many centuries.

    The traditions that gelled as ‘Islam’, whether explicitly as the teachings of Mohammad in the 7c or in the succeeding couple of centuries as the Caliphs and judges sorted it out from the many traditions, seem to be more of a cleaning up and radical simplification of all that. Islam has once again splintered and produced many doctrinal and political factions and interpretations, but it was originally very simple. Like early Protestantism. No nonsense about hypostatic unions, no neoplatonism, etc. Clean. like the desert.

    Not for nothing that some strains of Protestantism liked either Judaism or Islam better than they liked Rome or Constantinople/Moscow.

    Still, the Persian armies ruled Arabia for a time and the Roman Levant briefly. The Arabs once armed with something like Islam did get a lot farther west and for a time the Persians were quite subjugated and their native religion was crushed.

    And there’s another angle, even apart from considering it Christianity 4.0- Revenge of the Fallen.

    When Constantine endorsed Christianity for Rome, he too faced a society that had no faith in its old gods, and little in competing philosophical systems then in play. He picked the relative outsider. It worked, if not entirely as he likely hoped.

    This all poses an interesting challenge for me. Which outcome is more personally repellent to me, is a hard question to answer.

    The other thing your framing of this made me think of was Dune. Lost religion’s followers, morphed into something else, waiting in the desert for millennia.

  18. Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite (Every nation gets the government it deserves) Joseph de Maistre
    Perhaps Islam is the religion that Europe deserves.

    • The thing there is that the only time you see a relatively high IQ group ruled by a relatively low IQ group, the former is a tiny minority.

      The muslims invading Europe are *stupid*. Really shockingly stupid. Populations with mean IQs in the 70-85 range. For a very long time to come, they’ll be nothing more than the native European rulers’ weapon against the local native populations.

      • When Spain was ruled by Muslim emirs, they outsourced much of the bureaucratic functions to the Jewish Community. The Muslim rulers were content to amuse themselves with Spanish slave girls in between battles with each other and the Christians to the north.

        I’m sure the new conquerors will find plenty of willing collaborators from the European management class to collect taxes and enforce the laws for them.

      • They aren’t the rulers just the shock troops. Why are they allowed to kidnap, rape, torture and beat school girls throughout England? Why can they go on rape sprees in Sweden, Norway and Germany? Why can you not criticize Mohammed?

        Because they’re in charge? No, they are just the pit bulls off the leash. They keep you inside the fence frightened, quiet and obedient. Sure, you can act out or ‘challenge’ in accepted ways but don’t step outside the fence.

  19. If the Koran is an accurate biography of Mohammed’s life, he did try to make himself a Jewish Prophet. The ignorant Arab caravan-raider cult-leader preaching craziness was of course laughed out of the temple by the Jews – which is part of Islam’s dim view of the Jews.

  20. “Put another way, Christianity made its way into a less than fertile land, but adapted and mutated until it was something that could thrive.”

    I think your formulation is inaccurate. How about this: “Put…..Christians made their way into a less-than-fertile land, and formulated (and accepted) heresies until they could survive and thrive.”

    Christianity pure–that is, Catholicism (and Uniate Eastern Orthodoxy) does not “adapt and mutate” to deny the Trinity (nor polygamy.) So any such adaptations were those of heretics.

    • I’ll agree – Islam has little in common with Christianity. In many ways it is the complete opposite.

  21. Back when London hosted the Olympics my wife’s nephew and his little evangelical missionary church sent out letters looking for sponsorship donations.

    I laughed and saved the the handwritten letter for the shear effrontery of it. Took it it be a hustle for a nice free trip (it was).
    I said England has already been Christianized for millennia, they don’t need you. Thinking more on it, I’m not so sure.

    • I said England has already been Christianized for millennia, they don’t need you.

      I think most people in Catholic and Orthodox countries despise these missionary people, laugh at them and think of them as nuts. Think about it. Your national faith was one of the founders of Christianity. What do the John Hagee types have to offer them that they don’t already have?

      • And yet in many of those same countries the growth is with the evangelicals. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing sect in Brazil.

    • Actually we have quite a few missions from the States but also from anglophone African countries. Shortage of homegrown evangelicals willing to actually knock on doors and make converts rather than just steal each other’s congregations.

  22. Unfortunately, Islam, like so called “Progressivism” has the characteristic of a plague destroying everything it touches and for the same reason. They are both intellectually stunting. Philosophies based on obedience do that to a people. They may give people purpose, but have proven woefully inadequate at mundane things like putting food on tables (except for the grandees)

    • But so was the actual Plague. The Black Death altered European history, helping bust up feudalism so that a new order could emerge.

      Nature is not delicate in her solutions.

    • The obedience thing is already something the elites are trying to take advantage of. The Islamic Caliphate was, at its peak a great administrative state with the Caliph at the center supported by the ministers of the Porte, called so because of its location in Topkapi palace, as well as sultans, who ran satrapies compliant with the orders from the center. Conquered territories were run by people who were the highest bidders in an auction run for that purpose. It is where the Spanish got the idea for their system of Alcaldes.
      I mentioned the Porte. These are the men who actually ran things. They got all the benefits of living well and some of the best women, or otherwise, and while there was a bit of intrigue, for the most part they were secure and their families well off. The bureaucrats. Our bureaucrats want to recreate something like this, and doing so requires having systems where everything and everyone runs through a gauntlet of evaluation and approval before being allowed to function within that system. Anything and anyone not quite fitting in is discarded.
      This is why I cling to a few libertarian ideas, such as abolition of licensing, which, you may have noticed, our more leftist brand of libertarian never talks about any more.

  23. I’m not sure that “The fact that Islam has not spread too far past the boundaries of the people who created it suggests something about religion in general and Islam in particular” is sufficiently addressed by your suggestion that a European Islam “could certainly evolve into something that does work.” It would have to be accepted in Europe first, before it starts evolving. But then again it did spread to Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia, which is pretty far beyond Arabia, both geographically and (at least initially) culturally. And it’s easy for me to imagine hip young Europeans going Muslim. Would a European Islam stop doing science and inventing new technology?

    • There are exceptions, for sure. Christianity, on the other hand, has turned up everywhere. Even Judaism seems to have the ability to root in any soil. Islam as practiced by the Arabs is not very portable. The Asian variety is strikingly different in key ways. That’s what has me thinking that Islam in Europe could be a mutated variety that works for Europeans. Less authoritarian and clannish.

      • “Christianity, on the other hand, has turned up everywhere. Even Judaism seems to have the ability to root in any soil.”

        Thus the term “Judaeo-Christian”, by the way, no matter the neo-Christian ex-pat’s screeching.

      • The clannishness may well be genetic, if HBDChick is right. That hypothesis certainly fits everything we know.

        As you know, I’m sure, Spandrell at Bloody Shovel has suggested that a naturalized Islam may be the future of the West.

        Finally, Stalin and Napoleon didn’t take over by defending the ancien regime. They joined the winning side and played the entryist game.

        The Cathedral/Cult/whatever has powerful defenses against people like us pursuing their traditional interests in a sane way — indeed, against sanity of any kind.

        Instead of Pickett’s Charge, or even a flanking maneuver, maybe we need to enlist and use their idiocies against them, rather than attacking their strong points.

        Then again, if a lot of sane productive white males suddenly discover Allah, they’ll surely smell a rat.

      • Islam doesn’t moderate. What happens is during the initial conquest of a land and people by Muslims, is the the new converts to Islam still retain their old value system which in turns moderates Islam. However after a century or so, the old values and ways are gone. Ingested by Islam.

        This is what happened to the Golden Age of Islam. When it took over the ME,Persia, and Central Asia. The civilized converts of these lands were responsible for all of Islam’s supposed progress. Once those lands were fully Islamized, they regressed into backwaters.

        The thing about Islam. Innovation is forbidden, There can be no reformation in Islam, no inclusion of outside values or thinking. All the theological doors are closed for good.

        Question anything about Islam and you put a death warrant on yourself. That’s how it deals with people who don’t buy into the shariah, Sunna, etc.

  24. Form over substance. If you attend an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy and a Catholic Mass, they look like entirely different religions to the naked eye. If you study the theology, however, you find that they are 99% the same in what they believe in, and most of the stuff they don’t agree on is irrelevant.

    It’s more of a 1,000 year turf war than anything else. The Orthodox Church patriarchates, archbishops and exarchates see themselves as equals with the Pope. And they are correct since this was the traditional view. The Pope, however, wants to make the Orthodox church heads subservient to him and they will never go for that. Nor can the Pope make an exception for Orthodoxy because if he does, the rest of his flock will eventually start peeling away.

    I was raised Eastern Orthodox, so I find the Catholic thing weird. But at the end of the day, God doesn’t really care what club you belong to.

    Also remember that the Muslims hold Jesus and his mother Mary in very high regard .

    P.S. The Orthodox believe themselves to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”; that is, the true Church established by Jesus Christ and placed into the care of the apostles.

    • Sorry, but I call bullshit.

      “Also remember that the Muslims hold Jesus and his mother Mary in very high regard .”

      You mean such as killing them first and quickly among the infidels?

      • In the Koran Jesus is considered to be a great prophet the equal of Moses, but not the Son of God. I am not familiar with the particular way that the revisionists described think that Islam may have evolved from Christianity, but knowing how heresies come about and how they get their greatest traction among the theologically ignorant it is easy to see how this could have happened, even if Mohammed was a real person. Instead of the heretics being hunted down, the heretics became the hunters. Knowing that the largest caches of heretical literature were preserved in Egypt and that the Coptic form of Christianity is mildly heretical, shows that that region of the world was fairly receptive to those kinds of ideas. Think about Augustine’s troubles with the Donatists. That was a sort of war. Maybe these new heretics decided that “the man” wasn’t going to beat them this time.

      • Jesus was considered a prophet and an entire chapter in the Koran is devoted to Mary. Yes, the Muslim religion builds on what came before it, but then again they all do.

        • Muslims also accuse Christians of shirk and view them as sub-humans.with no rights under Islam.

          In Islam there is no Golden Rule, instead it’s dog eat dog with them.

          Remember in the Koran the later chapters override what is written in the earlier ones.

          Mohammed didn’t as much build Islam on the basis of Christianity but was trying to convert Christians to his side. When that didn’t work, he either killed or enslaved them.

          There is a serious bloody mindedness in Islam that isn’t found anywhere else. ISIS and Al-Qeada along with other groups according to Al-Azar University in Cairo are indeed practicing Islam. What you see with them is the true face of Islam.

          • I don’t like Muslims any more than the average person does. I especially think they are big crybabies, just like the blacks. But I think there is something to be learned from the historical and political evolution of these religions and the extent to which they are similar to each other.

    • Well, guess what?

      The Protestants also think of themselves as the true church. A good friend had the habit of contrasting “Catholics” and “Christians” as if one is not a subset of the other, but a completely different religion. (Which is quite amusing considering that Protestants began as Catholics and kept most of what they hold sacred, like the Bible, that the Catholics had created.)

      And Mormons believe *they* are the true followers of Christ, etc.

      • The Protestants weren’t there at the beginning, they didn’t assemble the texts for what is today considered the Bible, and their theology deviates to a far greater degree from Catholics and Orthodox. I’m not in a position to understand the theological importance of where they deviate, but I suspect it’s about things that God doesn’t really care about. Also the Orthodox and Catholic Bibles have two additional books that the KJV doesn’t include.

        Like I said, I don’t think God cares what club you belong to. But if you’re trying to give an award to who hews the most to Christianity as it was practiced by the apostles, there are four churches that have a legitimate claim and they are: Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic and Oriental (I think they might be lumped in with the Copts, though).

    • I used to go to Greek Orthodox at least twice a year as a practicing Catholic. They are not that different. Except the Greeks dress up more as a matter of course like the Catholics used to.

      Last time I went to Mass I was the only guy wearing a jacket and tie.

      • There are pluses and minuses to both ways. The traditional way is more regimented and ritualistic, the evangelical way probably connects better with the average person. One thing Orthodox Churches have as an advantage is that you have 16 (?) different fiefdoms that are never going to agree with each other when it comes to any deviation from what is their understanding of the Word of God. That means realistically nothing ever can change and it stays reasonably true to the original faith.

  25. The problem with it being reconquest is that it is a process that is being directed, not by Muslims, but by the Davoisie/Brussels class. You yourself said that the problem is the decorator who hangs the ornament, not the ornament itself. Muslims aren’t teleporting into Europe; they’re being invited by the European elites. It isn’t conquest, but betrayal by guilt-ridden, cowardly nihilists (childless lunatics without a stake in the future, like Merkel and Macron). Also, the Muslims in Europe aren’t horse-mounted raider-warriors like Mehmed II; they’re basically “chavs” as the English call their wiggers, mostly underclass types who live on the dole in council estates and live as parasites. I’m not ready to give in to some fatalist historical process; Europe still has some fight left in it.

    • Looks like most of the fighting is coming from European women who are being raped. They tend to resist while they are still conscious. Islam? No thanks! Religions will be the death of humanity. Just saying’.

      • They’re also the ones who hold “Refugees Welcome” signs. They want to treated like “real” women by swarthy migrants, having de-balled their own men through years of applied feminist propaganda.

  26. “It’s unlikely that there is a secret mosque in Brussels for the EU rulers, but maybe they think some form of Islam would not be such a bad thing.”

    Brussels is where most of the Islamic attacks in France have been planned, its no surprise is the capital of the EU superstate and the useless NATO.

    Belgium iitself is a Anglo creation to weaken France and other Continental European powers.

Comments are closed.