Raymond Ibrahim on the Crusades

We are live now on the conversations that matter podcast. I'm your host John Harris. It is lunchtime at least on the East Coast breakfast time if you're on the West Coast And I hope many of you are able to take a break from work and join us.

I already see people coming into the feed. There's already questions amazingly. I do have a notification from rumble. I guess we are not streaming there right now So hopefully people who are on rumble get the message come to YouTube X or Facebook and you can stream live and ask whatever questions you want.

Why the Crusades Are Being Debated Again

This is a big episode. I have with me a special guest and Before I say who it is and everything I just want to say that There's been some talk online as many of you know in the more formed Evangelical Christian world about the Crusades over the last few weeks and whether or not these were justified these were Christian whether or not we should gain inspiration from them and While I have taken some courses that relate to this in college I'm not an expert on the Crusades.

And so I wanted to have someone on who is an expert and In that spirit we have with us for the first time on the conversations that matter Podcast Raymond Ibrahim. Thank you for joining us. I really appreciate it.

Yeah, my pleasure and You know Raymond I was looking at your credentials and I just don't have time enough to Cite all of them. It's pretty incredible the influence and Just the work you've done. You've done so much scholarly work.

You've written popular histories. You've been on news shows and In addition to all of that. I understand you're a bodybuilder and you've won competition So, I guess my first question is how do you have time for all the things that you've accomplished.

Well a bodybuilding. I was an actual formal former and Formally a bodybuilder, but this is my late teens and early 20s before I even really cared about these topics. I wasn't even in college. Or I had just begun and yeah, I did win one show. Mr. LA in 1991.

This is a long time ago. I wouldn't even call myself a bodybuilder today. I just lift weights. Because I don't want to be an armchair historian who becomes defeat and soft. I want to practice a little bit of what I preach in these books.

So try to keep physically active and physically fit and so that's where the weight lifting and exercise comes in. Which I recommend to anyone. Not for reasons of vanity and you know looking good, but just actual.

You know health and virility and energy and it just does wonders to one's overall, you know dynamic.

Well, I put on Twitter or an ex that I was gonna be interviewing you and I was surprised I had a lot of people respond with questions. They wanted me to ask but more than one question I think probably about four or five questions were how much can he bench press?

How much can he deadlift and I'm like what so I won't ask you those questions. But I think that's a good thing and impressive and I think that's something we should all aspire for that. So, I mean, I'm not Crazy about it, but I definitely try to go to the gym and I do find that my better writing is when I am Mentally physically and spiritually focused all at the same time.

Masculinity, Natural Order, and the Crusader Ethos

So One of the things I noticed is a good I guess segue for your book in your book Defenders of the West is a lot of these guys you talk about and so far I've read about El Cid and Richard the Lionheart and Duke What's his name?

Thank you. And these guys were they just stand out as Man's men like There's just something there's a quality they have that I don't see a lot of today and I think maybe that's a good place to start is Why is that like what kind of world did these men grow up in and why did they have such a fierce Disposition to defend the ones they loved they were strong.

They were just masculine in so many ways and we've lost that for some reason it seems.

Yeah. Well, they grew up in a natural world. And a natural world will naturally nurture these impulses manliness. You know, we don't even we can't even use that word anymore masculinity these are bad words now, right because Masculinity is immediately seen as toxic masculinity.

Manliness, what's that? You know, we're supposed to be. So they grew up in a natural setting much like the rest of the world today outside of the West. This is why you have Muslims the way they are and others.

You know men are men women are women. Okay, we on the other hand have been growing. We're raised in a I would say an artificial world. Meaning that false thoughts are put into our heads, you know from kindergarten on up and they emanate from all sorts of.

You know centers all the major centers from academia, you know, Hollywood the newsrooms. Everywhere you're given this opposite false message. It's part of social engineering, which is dedicated to emasculating men and you know, trying to turn women into men.

You see this in movies. I can't watch a movie anymore. Especially like historic movies, which is what I like. You know, let's say Crusades or Vikings or anything like that. Without all the heroes are women, right?

They're the ones who are the fighters. They're the tough guys. They're the ones who have wisdom and prudence and all the men are crying and falling apart. Okay, I mean this is all by design and it has its impact, you know, you're a young impressionable man.

You watch movie like that after one after another you're gonna think your role is is, you know. Not what those guys role was. Okay, let's put it that way in the same thing with women. So That that's the primary difference they grew up in a natural setting where a man was Allowed to develop into becoming a man and what are the things that normal healthy men care about?

Well, it's taking care of defending. That's why the book is called defenders of the West. Defending that which is theirs whether it's their civilization their family their cultures their religion their churches, okay.

And that's why these men fought tooth and nail and we're by our standards like you say, you're correct. I mean You know try to think of the toughest man today. He's he pales in comparison to any of these guys in this book.

You talk about real testosterone, right? So I think that's the primary difference and I think there are powers in play that are doing their utmost to convince Christians That they better not be like that.

That is not Christian. That is bad. That is even Jesus said turn the other cheek, etc Etc. We can get into that because that's a very important topic which I've addressed many times and it's very germane to our discussion today.

But anyway, that's what I would say is the the fundamental difference between them and our civilization today.

Yeah, I want to dive into that a little later in the podcast because I do think that we've lost something. We need to regain but I want to read for you. This is a Quote, it's a partial quote because it's in a long Paragraph and series of paragraphs, but I just want to get your reaction this is from a Christian apologist named James White who I do respect he's had a Significant I would say impact in the Christian apologetics world in Debating Muslims, but he did say this about the Crusades.

He says the motivation of the Crusades is what he's talking about was not some pure Christian society fighting off the infidel they were originated by the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church and So you're sending nominal Catholics from Europe to the Middle East to hack up Muslims and get hacked up by Muslims.

I think the insinuation there the Idea is that They're coming from places as far as way as England to a foreign land. That it's really just not their business to be there. The Catholic Church, of course is the one is a nefarious actor behind this and I know in the first crusade at least Pope Urban's Dicta basically said you would get I guess eternity in heaven some kind of a reward spiritually for participating in this so James White's a Protestant.

I'm a Protestant. Obviously, we we look at those things and think well, that's not accurate. That's not biblical. But what's your reaction to that? Because I it's he's not unique. I've seen this spirit many times.

The Crusades, Papal Authority, and Just War

Yeah, well the first thing to address is the fact that you know, he's Protestant you're Protestant which immediately Makes you see Christian history in a particular lens in a particular light. Which is basically anything Catholic is pretty jaundiced and open to.

Open to suspicion and has nefarious purposes. And by the way, I'm not Catholic. So I'm not you know here to defend that this or attack that I'm just being objective. It's very obvious that Protestants, you know anything that is associated with Catholicism and the Crusades are is immediately sort of seen as oh.

Here's more proof of wrongdoing and something you know that we have to denounce. And having said that I'm not saying that there aren't aspects of the Crusade that were one can be very critical about for example.

You know promising heaven or remission of sins more literally for those who do fight and die. You know, that's from a theological aspect. I think it's fine people to criticize that and debate that but what's overlooked is that's not really to me.

That's not what's at hand here. The real issue is. You know again, we're not told so I'll give you a paraphrase. It's almost a verbatim quote from John Esposito and he's a popular Georgetown professor and he's wrote.

You know, he's supposed to be an expert on Islam and Western interaction and he writes. And I quote because I've quoted this so many times I've almost memorized it but he writes for centuries of peace between the Muslim and Christian worlds elapsed before a papal power play.

Led to the Crusades and all this mistrust and anger amongst Muslims. Okay, the problem with this interpretation will so notice again. He papal power play. Well that immediately registers in the Protestant consciousness.

Oh, yeah bad. Okay, but notice how he says for four centuries of peace. Well, what is he talking about? Those four said he's saying basically like Islam came into the scene in the seventh century. Everything was peaceful until 1095 of Pope Irving called for the Crusade.

Okay. Well, it just so happens in those four centuries Islam went completely ballistic on the Christian world and conquered three-quarters of it. Okay through jihad people forget That when you when Islam was born in the 7th century in the deserts of Arabia the richer more sophisticated more articulate Christian regions were what are today Islamic and that is all of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt and all of.

What's called greater Syria in the Middle East which included? Jordan, Lebanon, you know. Let Israel. Large parts of Iraq and so forth. That's really where Christendom was and that was hacked away through extreme violent jihad.

The Islamic sources sound like something straight out of Isis. The historical chronicles the Muslims then did the same thing that Isis did they gave the Christians, you know? Choices convert pay tribute or get killed.

Churches were ransacked burned turned into mosques and this and when Muhammad dies in 632 732 all North Africa in the Middle East is conquered. Spain is conquered Christian Spain and now the Muslims are in the middle of France.

Okay at the Battle of Tours. Okay, where they're finally stopped. Okay, and then this arises again under the Turkish iteration a few centuries later. Now you have the Turks who are Muslim. They're the new standard bearers of jihad now, they're conquering Asia Minor.

Which is another ancient Christian bastion most of the letters that st Paul wrote his epistles were to cities that were in Asia Minor Turkey today. And then he and then they go into the Balkans and that's conquered subjugated, etc, etc.

So you really look at a map. It's just a few regions of Europe escape this. Muslims reached Iceland in the 16th century just for slaves. But they took back to North Africa and so in the 16th century. There were at least one and a quarter million European slaves being sold by Muslims just in Barbary.

Later under the the Khan ate the Golden Horde, which was Mongols would become Muslims. They were they enslaved something like five million Slavic peoples Russians and so forth and before that it was the same it was the same thing.

So imagine ignoring all that and just saying oh, yeah for centuries of peace. And then, you know these evil Christians and even the Crusade chroniclers if you look at them and what they wrote. It was what I'm discussing.

They they acknowledged that most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian that needed to be liberated not just the Holy Land. You know Louis the ninth King Louis of France. He went to Egypt primarily as part of his crusade.

Because he knew was in a Christian nation that need and he wanted to bring it back to Christianity by defeating the infidel there as one example so. And in and what it really boils down to is just war theory and this I would contend I don't I don't have a problem just war theory and anyone who does.

I don't think they understand their own church history. Too well because just war theory is the idea that even within Christianity you are. You are able to defend yourself you can defend your nation you can defend your family, okay?

I mean they've grappled with all these verses such as turn the other cheek. And you know the passive verses of the New Testament scholars have grappled and theologians with that centuries ago. It's starting in the first and second centuries and the consensus was basically that this sort of thing the passivity.

That's an individual thing that you can do but a state has to have rules and laws including punishment including execution including waging war when the war is a for a just cause and that's what the Crusades were seen at.

That time once again, there was another Iteration of extreme violence right before the Crusades. Especially attacks on pilgrims who were still trying to go to the Holy Land European pilgrims. But even before that in Asia Minor the Seljuk Turks were running amok.

According to contemporary sources had killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands of Christians, and that's what they were talking about. See, but when people condemn the Crusades they have no idea of this backdrop or the context.

They just think hey four centuries of peace everything's fine. And then the cat the evil Catholics decided to go to war because they want to colonize. Colonialize the Middle East etc. Etc. You know this is an anachronism of course.

Keep in mind that that Europe was considered weak vis-a-vis the Islamic world in these days. It was the underdog. We're so used to seeing things with a modern lens that we think the West is always powerful.

Muslims are always downtrodden and weak it was the exact opposite. During these times so anyway. This is a and the jet and we can get into the just war theory because there's a lot of compelling arguments for it.

And you know in the medieval era it was so taken for granted. I mean everyone accepted of course I can go fight the infidel because of what they're doing. Which is attacking innocent and killing innocent lives that it's more important for me to do that now as far as if that's enough to Get you into heaven.

Yeah, I'm fine I have no problem people want to argue about it from a theological standpoint as far as the rewards involved and so forth. But as far as an actual human institution defense and just war has a very long Lineage within Christian thought going all the way back to st. Augustine.

Well, I always saw that particular incentive as as an incentive. They were they were trying to Stir up Christians who didn't live in these border regions to go and help other Christian peoples and so when King Richard comes from England Obviously, that's pretty the Muslims would have to get through a lot of territory to get to his island.

But he recognizes you tell me if it's true or false that Pretty soon they would get to his island. And so that's why that's what motivated a lot of these Soldiers to go fight because they knew that it wouldn't stop In the eastern area of Europe or the southern area of Europe.

You know, I think today think of what would be considered the most Islamophobic worldview about Islam's. You know. Let's say the view that Muslims are violent Muslims want to kill Christians and Muslims want to subjugate Muslim on to this.

That was taken for granted by everyone in Europe at this time. Okay, that's exactly what they believe and Especially the religious hierarchy. So the Popes know today you see a Pope Francis and you think.

That Pope's historically are always diplomatic. In fact historically they were the ones who spearheaded the Crusades but for again for Compelling reasons not because they're trying to colonize. Okay, they're the weaker ones.

They're doing this to actually try to save Christian territories or recover them. So yeah, definitely people and the lay people the peasants. So obviously they didn't have it as articulate of an understanding as we do about Islam, you know to them.

They were just pagans. Just as long as you're not a Christian you're in the wrong. Okay, that was the view nobody cared about the particulars. You're just obviously an evil pagan but it was definitely understood that they were doing what they were doing and that and it and it you know today here's another sort of game historians and academics play when they talk about the long conflict between Muslims and Christians they often sidestep the religious aspect and they only highlight the National identity so you'll hear about Saracens and Arabs and Berbers and Moors Turks you won't hear how all of those are glued together by Islam and that they were.

They were waging their wars on Christians based exclusively on Islamic teaching the same sort that you know Isis promulgates and sponsors that were told has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, that was popular form of Islam.

No, that's a stirred up by videos and global warming, right? So I have a question on X from pastor Jay Chase Davis. He asks if were the the Crusaders true Christians and I want to just add to that when I was reading your book one of the things especially with El Cid, I thought was interesting was how often he gave credit to Christ or would have confidence because Christ is going to win the battle for us in these kinds of things and then Miraculous Looking things happened things that were against all odds.

I mean this really is a story. All the stories that you've contained in this book, which I appreciate you writing Seem to have that element that this really is against all odds. They shouldn't have won or they shouldn't have survived and yet You know something positive happened some whether that's defense of the West or you know I guess depending on which part of the Crusades they were able to recapture Jerusalem or whatever.

But there is this faith that seems to undergird some of these men and and I'm sure it's a mixed bag. But I'll let you answer the question. So the were they true Christians.

You know, I actually addressed this in the book defenders of the West and the introduction and my answer would paraphrase is I'm not gonna presume to judge the hearts of men who lived over a thousand years ago.

I don't know by their standards. They were Christian because Christianity back then was not about you know. Saying a certain formulation. I'm saved or I'm elect. And you know, therefore I'm going to heaven.

That's that's not how it was understood. It was actually about things you do in the now which would even include the warfare was actually seen in over and over. They would quote Christ saying things like no greater love does a man have been laying down his life for his fellow men.

Obviously Jesus meant something completely different. He was referring to his crucifixion. But it was very common for Crusader types to cite that as proof of you know, this is love what we're doing. We're defending our fellow Christians who are being killed and ransacked and raped and enslaved.

Okay, so from their world they were Christians they said they were Christians and they went to church. And again, remember there is no there is no Protestantism in this day. So there's no alternative.

It is what we call today Catholicism. There was no other option. I mean even orthodoxy is essentially the same sorts of teachings as Catholicism, so. Does that does that mean they were Christians? No, I don't know if you mean by by our by modern-day Standards and and I would even argue that modern-day standards now are not even just Protestant you even Catholics think this way.

I think Catholics have been Protestantized besides beside themselves without even knowing so many Catholics would probably agree with Protestants against their own Catholic Ancestors, I think so. What I'm saying is there's a sort of modern spirit and how people understand what Christianity is and should be.

And I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just simply saying that these were just not applicable. These would not be intelligible to anyone in these centuries that we're discussing.

So they were Christian in the sense that one could be a Christian. Yeah, they probably would have looked at people in our day at with two like sideways if If we were to ask like are you a Christian? Are you part of a Christian nation?

They would have just said of course we are there was that I go to church. What do you want? Yeah, right that we live in this and that does that mean that they are truly converted and going to heaven and these kinds of things that.

And sincere, you know in their their faith and their walk with Christ and stuff that would have probably I would assume be a little different to them like that would have you know, they would have seen themselves culturally as Christians and then their their deeds as you say or their Their their actions the way they live their life.

Would manifest a fruit that would bear witness to whether or not this was truly in their heart. That's at least that's what I've read in my limited reading of that period. One of the things you just brought up that I think is important to recognize and I'd love to hear you speak on it is This idea that the Muslims were that there's a moral equivalency Between Christians and Muslims at this time or that the Christians are the true aggressors.

Which you hinted at earlier and that the Muslims were more magnanimous I'll give you a little story when I was probably in my teenage years. Someone came to my evangelical church who was a Jewish Missionary to Jewish people we'll put it that way and as a Christian but one of the things that he said and this colored the entire sermon it upset me so much at the time was that Christians are very anti-semitic throughout the last two to millennium.

That's the main hang-up Jewish people have is that the Christians are anti-semitic and the evidence for this. What if his main evidences was how the Christians treated Muslims are sorry Jewish people during the Crusades?

That they they killed them. They abused them. They made them second-class citizens and that the Muslims were much more magnanimous much more tolerant. Would your worst-case scenario only make them pay this jizya tax and that was it and they could live in peace and prosperity in the Middle East and so Muslims are superior to Christians in the way they Treat Jewish people and when I went to seminary, I had a professor tell us that we ought to apologize.

Basically, he insinuated we ought to apologize to Muslims for the Crusades because the Christians just broke all their rules and. And this was a horrible not just for Jewish people but for Muslims. So could you just address this moral equivalency or or the idea that the Christians were far worse during the Crusades?

Islam, the Crusades, and the Historical Record

Yeah, that's the issue today. And this goes with everything with the Crusades anything Western what's going on today in academia and popular culture is. You find something bad that Western or Christian people did okay, and then you catapult it focus on it.

Put the limelight on it and then. Even though other people have done the same and worse you ignore that. Okay. So what happens is it stands out? So let's say the transatlantic slave trade, right? I mean everyone in every American student knows about slavery and how bad it was and how Horrific and all the terrible conditions of the Africans and boats, etc, etc.

And it's true that this is not a lie. The lie is one of omission. What you're not told is that was par for the course everywhere. Okay, that slavery was just part of the world that white people were enslaved oftentimes including by black skinned people.

Historically that blacks enslaved blacks that Arabs and Muslims were the greatest slave traders of all including of blacks and of Europeans. You know same thing with you know, the idea like when it when Europeans come to Europe or the Americas and you know.

Apparently they're all greedy and you know, it's an evil and cynical because they're Christians Catholic Christians and. The natives are all peaceful, you know Pocahontas types. Well again, okay complete lie.

The natives were cannibals and engaged in tribalism. Here's the here's the thing that people don't get. It's not when you look at modern history and the West all of a sudden is superior to everyone else.

It's not because the West was extra violent. It was because they had better weapons and technology. Okay, but African tribesmen Native American tribesmen were engaged in constant warfare. But it was limited to spears and bows and arrows so they could only do so much damage.

But it was the same, you know, if they could do it trust me. They would have if they could conquer vast lands and you know govern them and so forth. So the problem is everything is done intentionally to focus just on anything bad.

The West does and ignore the rest of history and so it is with the Crusades. You know, you're talking about anti-semitism. The fact is. During popular crusader movements. Sometimes people would rise up against local Jews in Europe, but the actual Priests the actual church hierarchy that the actual Kings were against that and they would punish those who did it and they would enforce Protection of the Jews and these guys were also Crusaders.

So it wasn't you know, it's hard to say that the crusade movement is itself inherently anti-semitic. No, it's just it's a it creates a fervor of religious enthusiasm and the argument many of these. It was usually peasants would attack the Jews.

Is why am I traveling thousands of miles to fight the infidel over there when the infidels right here? Okay. And so it was that kind of logic but from a formal standpoint the church condemned it. People and the local monks and priests would defend the Jews and so forth.

So, you know that it is what it is, but that should also be taken into account. I think. As far as the idea of you know Islam was so tolerant and it gave the Jews so much. Yeah, that's another famous line that we get oftentimes.

But if that was true, then why were most of the Jews living in Europe at the time? Why didn't they go to Muslim controlled regions? They only went there after they were for example expelled. In Spain, for example, which we're told is wonderful multicultural under the Umayyads.

You know that both the Christians and the Jews and Muslims lived side by side. Well, that's not very true. There's a great book by a scholar Dario Fernandez Morena and it's called I think the Andalusian myth for anyone who's interested in that particular topic but You know, they had to the Muslims did the same sorts of things to the Jews.

Another book. It's this thick. It's a tome. It's by Andrew Boston and it's called something like Islamic anti-semitism, it's just for full of source material. It's this big of Muslim what we would call anti-semitism.

So it's Jews persecution, etc. So again, not true. They maybe they found one tolerant Khalif who for his own advantageous purposes was good to Jews. And now that's become the story that that that is all of Islam and again.

They've ignored the vast majority of the history, which is otherwise like I said, that's that's the game that they continuously play.

Well, I have another question here from Matt Boros from X. He says were the Crusaders Primarily offensive or defensive. I think you may have already answered this that they were primarily defensive.

They were their motivation was defensive. But of course when you look at them, they seem offensive because they're leaving their territories and entering what is seen as Islamic territory. But in the Crusader mind that is our territory that was conquered by Muslims and we're reconquering it.

Remember when Islam Muslims conquered the Holy Land and Jerusalem was conquered in 637 AD it had been Christian for centuries and Constantine had built, you know magnificent churches and Basilicas and so forth all over marking the holy sites, you know Christ's burial resurrection, etc.

And it was a major important pilgrimage center for Christianity for centuries. And they knew that the Europeans so Islam came conquered took over and then so from the now, this is only four centuries later Europeans remember this is Christian territory.

So so it looks like it's offensive because you know ostensibly why are you leaving your land and coming to our land? But in the in the rationale, it's again part of just war theory. It's liberating former formerly Christian nations.

Smash bales on. X says did the Crusades go far enough? Probably thinking about today's context and did you know did it sounds or it looks like Islam was able to regain some power and so the Crusades kind of dissipated.

Well, yeah, I mean and this goes back to the question of comparing contrasting the mentality of those men with today. You know. It's just amazing because the the Europeans of those days in my books defenders of the Western sword and scimitar that you will see they fought.

Whether it was during the Crusades or defending their own nations in Europe from Muslim invaders and the ironies today. And keep in mind again people forget but during these centuries Europe in the Christian world was the was the weak horse.

Okay, they were the. They were the outnumbered weak one. I mean people today that we just have. I think I said this but we have this. Mentality like the West was always powerful and Muslims were always weak was the exact opposites.

And the Ottoman Empire was this humongous behemoth that could marshal hundreds of thousands of soldiers at any given time. Fighting, you know 10 ,000 or 5 ,000 shabbily clad peasants in you know, Romania, for example.

So they were so and yet they were able to succeed by and large and liberate European nations. Spain after seven centuries of warfare the Balkans which were conquered even Russia, which was under Islamic control by the Tatars all of them gained their liberation.

But today if you look at the modern world, you know, the West is supposed to be superior superior and everything militarily economically. Everything is in play and Muslims are weaker than ever and yet you have Muslims terrorizing the West left and right and why is that?

It's not because of Muslims doing anything you it's because Westerners are the exact opposite of their forefathers. That's why they hate them so much now Westerners are passive now Westerners I think it's a virtue to basically be a doormat.

They think that's what Christianity really is. You know. They make a virtue of a vice which is their own cowardice and they elevate that you want everyone to copy it and that's a whole.

Different murky topic we can discuss at some point. Well Reverend BA Castle writes a ask a question that's related to this. He says what would a contemporary Crusader mindset look like today? So I I do want to keep talking about the Crusades, but maybe we should just leave them for a second and talk about the modern situation because This is I think part of the reason we're even having this discussion.

There are younger guys, especially zoomer aged men from what I see who are Christians who are saying. Especially in Great Britain. This is unacceptable. What's happening is wrong we need to regain that spirit that our forefathers centuries ago had and They're being often chided for this by those who are a little older perhaps I don't know if it's fully a generational thing.

But I think those who have to deal with and their families are going to have to deal with the problems created by mass immigration which includes Muslims coming to these Western areas are Angry about it and they want a solution.

So, what would that look like today in your mind in the modern world to recapture some of these positive heroes that you've talked.

About in Defenders of the West. Yeah recapturing the positive aspect of these heroes is simply again We go back to the idea of just war which is you know, what I can be a Christian. I can be a good person but enough is enough and you know, there are lines and barriers.

You can't transgress. Okay. Attacking my homeland attacking my civilization attacking my culture my family my people my women my children my churches is a no-no and I am fully and Completely justified in defending all of these things and again, this is very biblical.

All right, there's nothing non-christian about that and this is a whole we can get into that. But um, I think that's that's the shift that needs to come and people need to stop thinking that. I mean Look at where we've gone.

We've gone from where. Like I said, the West was weak Europe and it was still because of its just drive. It was able to fight back and maintain its virtue and today it's so powerful and rich. Militarily mighty and it's being completely run over.

I mean including demographically all throughout Europe. Okay, where you know the name Muhammad is the number one name for baby boys in major cities all around. So that itself is its own takeover. Bottom line is just being passive is not enough and that's what something needs to change one way or the other and Unfortunately, sometimes if you keep if you keep covering this it's like a boiling pot and you don't let it vent it gets really bad.

It gets even worse the pendulum which is, you know. Passive doormat Europeans is gonna swing all the other way until you get something like Hitler. Okay, that's usually what happens. I think it's better to let it vent and let people just you know.

Get their grievances out and get this fixed instead of pretending. Nothing's happening. Oh you people are racist because you you know, you want your country not being destroyed by migrants, etc, etc. That kind of narrative needs to move if it doesn't it will it does get violent in general.

That's that's the teaching of history and it gets really bad. So I think the best way it is, you know, the chivalrous way if you will is you know, maintain this what I'm discussing. This sort of just war theory outlook.

Okay and work on it. But at the same time you're not turning into a complete savage, you know, an evil person or is that over racist? You know, you still maintain your balance and you just work through that and that's actually how Christians historically.

That's how they saw this conflict through that kind of lens.