the subject of this video is a YouTuber called Pax tube whose video repertoire includes analysis of How deep the gigachad meme is trying to convince people Attack on Titan is about Marxism and how apparently the Crusades were pretty cool according to him on March 24th Pax 2 decided to join the proud tradition of creators who have discovered that you've all been lied to every historian was wrong they found the truth and they're going to show you how all in a 15-minute YouTube video in this video you'll be finding out why the Crusades were not only morally Justified but were actually a historic achievement buckle up because there's a lot to cover [Music] this video is not just about paxtube my intent here is to use the misconceptions and outright lies fronted by Pax tube as a jumping off point to teach you some interesting aspects of the Crusades that you may not have heard of and point you in the direction of literature that might be conducive to further learning I first heard of pax 2 when I saw my friends making fun of him on Twitter because he was freaking out over allegations that his favorite underage presenting YouTuber may have had sex before add that even more shocking to him she may have dated a black man this is a deeply unserious individual paxtube is a special kind of online larper called a tradcath or a traditional catholic they're not actually traditional Catholics by any meaning of the word instead adopting some weird reimagined return LARP aesthetic based on cherry-picked aspects of Catholicism that they think are neat because these tradcats are usually terminally online young men who unlike many of their great Heroes did not choose their celibacy they tend to gravitate towards power fantasies emerging from distorted and often completely incorrect conceptions of History commonly in fact these historical power fantasies run counter to pretty much every every aspect of traditional Christian virtue this is especially evident in the fetishization of the Spanish Empire and its conquistadors who were strongly condemned by the Catholic clergy at the time for their transgressions which included the kidnapping of native women and forcing them into sexual slavery this is a fantasy that might be appealing to incels who have never felt the touch of a woman and probably related to the former never treated a woman like a human being and an equal they also fetishize another part of History one that's very misunderstood in popular conceptions and wound that is especially misunderstood by so-called traditional Catholics who really have no idea the lengths the Catholic clergy had to go to in order for the whole event to not be viewed as a direct affront to God namely the Crusades I've criticized other history or history adjacent creators in the past but Pax tube's treatment the Crusades really is something special unlike someone like waterfalled his whose wild ramblings touch on topics completely unrelated to the subject of the video with leaps of logic that are hard to follow Pax tube's logic is clear concise and therefore so transparently stupid my Approach will be Source based and you will see citation on screen down to the page number whenever I make any claim that isn't obvious like for example the Crusades happened there will be a bibliography in the description so that you can find and verify any of the evidence that I'm presenting whenever I show a clip from Pax tube or reference an argument he makes there will be a timestamp on screen for when you can find the clip in this video the very first thing you should consider when consuming any sort of History content on YouTube in book form or elsewhere is the author's sources what sort of evidence are they citing for their claims and author's chosen sources will tell you a lot about their aptitude for history and their Tendencies it'll also tell you whether or not their evidence relates to their claims and whether or not their evidence still holds true the principal Source cited by backstube is John J O'Neal's holy Warriors Islam and the demise of classical civilization from 2009 as well as an essay by the same author on a dubious blog and a YouTube lecture from the center for study of political Islam from 2012. finally there is a primary source actually hope Urban II speech which launched the first crusade let's go over them one by one the primary source is fine if it's used as such meaning that it's analyzed and treated not as someone relaying an unbiased factual and fully informed account of what was going on in the year 2095 but instead a source of what that person believed how they interpreted the world and so on we'll talk more about Pope Urban in the second speech when it comes up in the video let's talk about the 44-minute YouTube video he sites Center for study of political Islam was founded by Bill Warner a physics Professor who the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2011 described as one of a core group of 10 anti-islam hardliners in the United States terrorism expert Jeffrey Bale describes them as an example of writers who equate the religion of Islam with islamism that is to say fundamentalist extremists the likes of Isis the Council of American Islamic relations has described the organization as islamophobic this hardly seems like the sort of source that would treat history with the somber honestly it deserves the film takes place during the major historical conflict between the Christian world and the Islamic world that we today call the Crusades this might seem like a nitpick but this is going to become very important later on in the video so I have to address it first of all treating all nine Crusades with a span of 177 years as a singular conflict is somewhat interesting this is what historians call constructing a narrative essentially what he's doing is he's taking very clearly disparate events and conflicts separated by differences in space time and other characteristics and folding them into one grand narrative there is perhaps a unified narrative to be created about the Crusades but such a narrative can't be created to any satisfactory degree in a 15-minute YouTube video based on a single book by an author clinging to some outdated Notions of History there's nothing inherently wrong with constructing a narrative but there is something wrong or at the very least misleading with this specific narrative before the first crusade there was never any such thing as a shared Christian European identity and the many diverse peoples of Europe never considered Muslims as one people belonging to One Singular world it is true that this conception began to take shape of the course of the Crusades and that the Crusades is where the idea of a common Christian European identity was born bathed in the blood of thousands of soldiers but also thousands more Innocents a key eyewitness chronicler for sure of Shotwell and chaplain to the first crowned king of Crusader Jerusalem tells us that as the First Crusade unfolded some Christians like vulture himself had begun to view a multiplicity of peoples who were Muslim purely as Muslim or saracen as they refer to them however Christians were not viewed in the same manner being viewed instead as syrians Armenians Franks Greeks and so on this is not something as simple as a foreigner lumping them all together out of ignorance because we can see the reverse did not happen from the perspective of Islamic sources in Arabic and other languages they refer to what we now often call Europeans As Romans Greeks Franks Slavs and so on depending on where they were from we're going to come back to this later on but know that from the get-go this video has already started spinning a narrative that runs counter to the sources he keeps referencing the Christian world as if such a thing existed all the way back to prior to the emergence of Islam back then they were not Europeans they they were not Christians there were Romans Greeks and so on we can use the word Europe to refer to the geographic region but a European Identity or a Christian identity and these things being somewhat synonymous did not exist at least not yet and most of the barbarians also converted so if that happened in Europe what happened in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid 600s air Warlords sprang out of the Arabian Peninsula and began conquering everything in their path they brought with them their own religion Islam and unlike European barbarians they did not convert to Christianity paxip is using the word barbarians a term used to refer to quote-unquote foreigners possessing a less Advanced culture to create the notion that The Barbarians that presided over the decline of the Roman Empire adopted a quote-unquote civilized culture through Christianity while in contrast according to him the Muslims did not and so logically in this conception that he outlines remained as barbarians I don't think I have to spell out the biases here we know what's going on I'll mostly focus on showing you where he's lying and teaching you some interesting facts about the Crusades instead now I'm not going to moralize about this conquest and Wars of expansion have been common all through history and Islam followed in that same mold however Islam did take things a step further with its concept of jihad or holy war Muhammad was a conqueror who took slaves and Islam has sought to emulate his example ever since as a side note this is also why slavery has always been common in the Islamic world and continues to be practiced there to this very day Islam was not unique in this regard Judaism also possessed a religiously ordained military policy expressed in Deuteronomy and kings and Christianity began to form its own theories of just and holy Warfare as early as the year 325 with Saint Augustine according to Brian katlas a professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado Boulder Jihad among the early khalifs was more akin to How the West today views it as a moral imperative to dominate other societies in order to bring liberal democracy and integrate the countries into the world markets we justify this in that they may over time choose to become what the West considers a just and fair Society this is how the conquest and domination of other peoples was viewed by these early khalifs according to the professor at least on the notion of slavery the slave market in Libya Which packs two balloons to as being representative of the state in the Islamic world of course giving zero Citation for that claim is an interesting one as well that very slave market emerged specifically as a result of this exact Western pursuit of spreading democracy through the use of force Human Rights Watch documented isolated incidents of slavery in Libya prior to the campaign against Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. after the collapse of the country's government and its descent into Civil War hundreds of refugees and migrants are sold as slaves across the country every week according to Al Jazeera there are very concrete and identifiable causes for this this is a case of desperation among people fleeing exploitation and a deteriorating ecological situation reaching the periphery of the liberal Corps were people eager to exploit the suffering in the pursuit of profit lie in weight circling back to Jihad there was an additional component to this phenomenon that even more so did not emphasize the domination of the other and that was the moral struggle component of jihad Jihad was invoked in contests over the establishment of what they saw as legitimate and righteous Islamic political Authority and as such they viewed rival Islamic regimes as much greater threats than rival Christian ones Muslim rulers like the Christian ones on the Islamic periphery were pragmatic quote compromise and negotiation were preferred over extremism and extermination and princes and kings pursued their political goals with relative little concern as to the religious identity of their allies and enemies and then came the First Crusade Christians in conquered lands were second-class citizens and many were taken as slaves this is correct and in 1086 about 10 of all Christians in England were slaves according to the domesday book this was the reality of the time Christians did not have a very good time under Islamic rule compared to Christian rule of course being that there were second-class citizens however it should be noted that these were the Middle Ages so I'd argue very few people were having a very good time regardless of where they lived and that the practice of persecution of Christians and the relations between Christian and Islamic communities and Islamic held lands varied greatly by geography and time as a side note Jews were subjected to these same restrictions and Taxation as Christians and Islamic lands but still a Jew in Baghdad lived safer from persecution than a Jew in Paris from bases in North Africa and the Middle East they turn the Mediterranean into an unsafe hell hole this crashed the European economy and made Europe a miserable place for Commerce for almost 400 years he uses a screenshot from Wikipedia which is just an awful way of doing this you could instead look at the citation of the article get the page number and tell us that we're also never even given the name of the article it's from many wars were fought by Muslim rulers and Byzantine rulers in the period he speaks of and War made the Mediterranean unsafe which no doubt collapsed existing connections of Commerce Islamic rulers were not the only ones to launch raids in the Mediterranean here this was war and it takes two to tango Islam's so-called Golden Age came at Europe and Christianity's expense this is the true reason that many consider the year's 600 A.D to 1000 a day a dark age for Europe the only reason one would view the Islamic golden age as something that occurred at the expense of Europe is that one considers a good or golden age to be one of territorial domination or Conquest viewing the will build any zero-sum game like this can be outright harmful and very much so tarnishes your understanding of the actual history the many peoples and polities that made up the so-called Christian and Islamic worlds in this period benefited greatly from contact with one another at times people don't tend to associate the Islamic Golden Age with large swaths of green on a map drawn on a computer in the 21st century but with the many cultural and technological innovations that took place in the various caliphates one doesn't need to engage in piracy or Warfare in order to invent algebra and it can be argued that not only did the Islamic Golden Age not come at the worst expense but instead innovated on prior innovations that had taken place in regions such as Greece Innovations which then later would be iterated upon by scientists in the west these are not two worlds in Conflict the Mediterranean was one large World home to a diversity of cultures and peoples who came into conflict with one another but also made friends with loved worked with helped and learned from one another as the Franks began to settle under Levant following the military successes of the First Crusade they came to realize how much they shared with Muslims native to that land culture of sharkhouses himself said quote we are all orientals now consider I pray and reflect how in our time God has transferred the West into the East for we who were occidentals now have been made orientals he who was a Roman or a Frank is now Galilean or an inhabitant of Palestine one who was a citizen of reims or of shahren now has been made a citizen of Tire or Antioch we have already forgotten the places of our birth the Franks came to admire the culture of the East and recognized the noble and chivalric character of the Infidel Knights they wrote against in battle and entertained as guests in their coach Usama even mankid a poet Diplomat politician and mujahid born in the same year as Pope Urban II had given his speech propagandizing for the Crusades gave us many fun anecdotes through his writings he speaks of quoting catalos innocently uncultured and orientalized franks sympathetic Templars crude but Valiant Crusaders some gave him shelter and protected him while he prayed and one who referred to him as his brother even offered to take osama's son back to Europe with him in the late 900s Central Asian Muslim group called the seljuk Turks began migrating into Anatolia in 1064 they completely conquered Armenia and sacked its capital Ani the city never recovered from this brutality and remains a ruin to this very day almost all of the Armenian population had to migrate Southeast to Celestia creating an entire New Kingdom called selician Armenia in other words Islam had made the Armenian Homeland unlivable the Turks then turned their expansion into the Byzantine Empire they began invading Western Anatolia in droves the byzantines tried to launch counter-attacks but were ultimately defeated at the Battle of Massacre after this defeat Turks began Mass migrating into Anatolia completely altering its demographics the specific instance of genocidal intent referenced by paxter was that of the seljuk turks's treatment of the Armenians and the decades prior to the Crusades mentioning specifically the sacking of Ani in 1064. this is a complete mischaracterization of what occurred Arabs had conquered armenianism form hundred years prior over the course of those 400 years the Armenians and Arabs sometimes fought side by side against common enemies like the hazards Arabs had migrated to Armenia in this period And by the 900s many emirs were settled as somewhat equals to the native Armenian Lords what actually brought an end to the Armenian golden age was internal succession disputes and Invasion and domination not by Muslims but by Greek Orthodox Christians of the resurgent Byzantine Empire the Armenians emigrated from their shattered Kingdom into a different part of the Byzantine Empire not because of Islam but partly because the Byzantine Empire forced Armenians to resettle there in order to repopulate the area after it had been conquered from Muslims in the mid 900s the kingdom only became independent when they took advantage of the calming of the Crusades to throw up the Yoke of their Byzantine overlords in the 1090s these seljuks did sack Ani and they did so simultaneously as the byzantines were taking the city of cars the seljuks did defeat the byzantines of the battle of manaskar and the seljuk empire did conquer a lot of territory and sojuk Turks did begin to migrate into the conquered lands but this demographic shift that Pax tube is talking about took place over the course of centuries following invasions by Genghis Khan in 1236 and the brutal and destructive invasions of Amir tamur between 1386 and 1403 Pax tube is straight up lying here he's trying to create a justification for what the Crusades would later go on to do to Arabs not seljuk Turks in a completely different part of the world all wars alter the demographics of regions but he's focusing on this not because it altered the demographics he's focusing on it because of how it altered the demographics keep this part about demographics in the back of your head for later Emperor Alexius kamninis made a desperate appeal to the pope and Western Christendom for Aid the Catholic pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs did not get along to put it lightly but the issue had become that serious that they were now willing to cooperate according to Thomas asbridge in the Crusades the war for the Holy Land Pope Urban II had likely been considering a Ventura akin to the Crusades for some time before the Greek Emperor petitioned him for Aid asbridge also reasons that the Greek Emperor had likely only expected a token force of Frankish mercenaries to come to 8 and not a tidal wave of humans which would in later Crusades push the Byzantine Empire to the brink Pope Urban II had presided over the restoration of much of the fading authority of the papacy and saw this as an opportunity to mend relations with the Greek Church reaffirm and expand Rome's Authority and also to harness and redirect some of the warlike energies of contemporary medieval Society a major problem facing the Knighthood or the martial class of the various European peoples who adhere to Christianity was the issue that the church taught that murder and War would lead to damnation of their souls so through the creation of Holy Wars claimed to be the will of God the martial class of Europe could continue to pursue their secular careers by attaining Glory Loot and land through Conquest without worrying about their souls Pope Urban II just like Emperor Kings and khalifs was a political actor with worldly concerns pursuing pragmatic political goals what made matters even more urgent was that Turks had begun persecuting Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land priests like Peter The Hermit who would become one of the greatest Advocates of the Crusades witnessed this first hand it's wonderful that it brings so Peter The Hermit Peter The Hermit did claim to have witnessed horrible things being done towards Christians in the Holy Land of course that's what he claimed what's interesting though is how paxtoop completely glosses over a very important aspect of Peter the hermit's contribution to the Crusades which should be mentioned as it paints his allegations of persecution in a somewhat different light Peter The Hermit LED an army of ill-equipped and ill-trained soldiers which came to be known as The People's Crusade into the very first battle of the Crusades not in the Holy Land not near Byzantium not against Muslims the very first battle of the Crusades was waged in the streets of Loren cologne worms spire and mines and what is present-day France and Germany against unarmed Jewish civilians then in a disorderly manner they made their way towards Constantinople and then on towards the holy land at which point they encountered the Turks and immediately died Peter The Hermit was one of very few survivors the daughter of Emperor Alexius the first wrote about her father's Reign and alleges that the Emperor who supposedly was the instigator of the Crusades according to Pax tube had said every Crusader Army that had set out from Europe had been preceded by a plague of locusts as if they were a Biblical curse vomited forth towards his lands according to Thomas asperbridge it is argued by historians that Alexia's view to the Advent of the First Crusade itself also with much suspicion and disdain his daughter had gone on to describe the Crusaders as quote all the barbarians of the West her account was written decades after in 1148 with much hindsight after a tumultuous relationship between the somewhat unsuccessful Crusaders and the Byzantine Empire of course she did not know that only half a century later in 1204 The Fourth Crusade would split into two parts one traveling to Constantinople in order to sack the city instead of fighting their so-called enemies the Muslims this is what Catholic Europeans knew about Islam on the eve of the First Crusade Muslims were enemies of Christ they waged Wars against non-combatants and enslaved women and children in and they had conquered all of Iberia Anatolia and threatened France and Italy Christians in fact knew very little about Islam the very first translation of the Quran was only made available between 1141 and 43 when Peter the venerable commissioned these translations most of what these Christians who lived far from so-called Muslim lands actually knew about their enemy was filtered through propaganda itself written and spoken with the express purpose of instigating the Crusades to begin with the word spoken by Pope Urban II and Peter The Hermit to instigate the Crusades were not a factual account of events but a rallying cry for war a piece of carefully crafted propaganda pop Urban II claimed Muslims on a systematic scale were torturing and eviscerating Christians in the Holy Land raping women forcibly circumcising men and spreading the circumcision blood on Church altars and pouring it into baptismal fonts while forced conversions and some of these acts no doubt had occurred in select instances throughout so-called Muslim lands they would also have occurred in select instances throughout so-called Christian lands there is no evidence for any of these things having taken place on any systematic scale in order to justify in military intervention we're going to talk more about what the Crusaders came to believe about their so-called enemies of Christ in a moment the First Crusade was successful in that it accomplished its goals of Conquering the holy land and placing Jerusalem under Christian rule but the military success of the First Crusade was never to be replicated again the fact that the First Crusade saw any success at all astonishes historians to this day and it was contingent on so many factors such as the disunity of Muslim rulers at that time and of course the sheer fanaticism of the Crusaders themselves I'm not claiming Pope Urban II was uniquely evil presenting thousands to what logically should have been their doom on a journey that perhaps even required the Looting of the countryside to secure Provisions before they even got close to their goal pop Urban II may not have been aware of how doomed this Venture in retrospect may seem he is by no means unique in having sent thousands to their deaths unnecessarily in the period either but it Bears mentioning that the pope himself was seemingly willing to pay the cost of securing Rome's authority over the secular Lords of Europe with the blood of thousands in the year 2000 Pope John Paul asked for forgiveness for the church's past intolerance and the Betrayal of the Gospel committed by some of their brothers especially in the second millennium though he did not cite specifics it speculated that this was in reference to events such as the Crusades and the Inquisition and said there was an objective Collective responsibility for past errors that modern Catholics should acknowledge and repent in 2011 Pope Benedict condemned violence in God's name quote we acknowledge it with great shame but it is utterly clear that this was an abuse of the Christian faith one that evidently contradicts its nature he finished the public Proclamation by saying quote violence never again war never again terrorism never again in the name of God May every religion bring upon Earth Justice and peace forgiveness life and love [Music] the armies of the First Crusade never coalesced into anything resembling a single Army of Christ instead being a ragtag collection of all kinds of people there were civilians people with various stages of armament and training and people owing loyalty to various princes and lordlings there is however a singular image that the word Crusader generally conjures forth in people's minds that is of a warrior of the order of the temple or what came to be known as the Knights Templar as a newly founded kingdom of Jerusalem went into decline castles sprang up around the holy land for its defense built by a merger of the new militarization of the papacy traditional catholic piety and the emerging Crusader ideology a curious new aspect of Crusader ideology came to be inextricably linked with a specific monastic order when Saint Bernard of cuervor a brilliant propagandist and strong proponent of the Knights Templar was forced to rationalize and reconcile the idea of priests whose professional was to deal in death with the gospel of Christ the idea of professional murder priests was of course controversial and the justification for it even more so I mentioned how Pope Urban II may have wished to provide the Warriors of Germany in in France a means by which they could fight their Wars game Loot and do the things medieval knights and Lords did without fear of Eternal damnation despite Pope Urban II's best efforts at painting the enemy as monstrous one problem still remained they would still be killing human beings it is here that Saint Bernard of clever attributed a very frightening piece of theology to justify the existence of the new Warrior priesthood he had declared that Muslims were agents of evil in the world and so whoever killed a quote-unquote malefactor would not be a homicide that is they would not be the killer of a human being only a killer of evil the conflict was thus elevated into a world contest against evil human lives did not matter in this conception all that matters was to destroy evil itself Scholars of race and racism have reasoned this to be an example of proto-racism that is racism before modern conceptions of race and racism existed watch my video on the invention of race if you want to learn more alongside the aforementioned massacres of Jews in the Rhineland the Crusaders also brought with them this tendency into the Holy Land quoting Amin Malouf from the Crusades through Arab ice from 1984. the French had taken the holy city on Friday the 22nd day of the month of Shaban in the year of hagira 492 or 15th of July 1099 after 40 days Siege the Exile still trembled when they spoke of the fall of the city they stared into space as though they could still see the fair-haired and heavily armored Warriors spilling through the streets swords in hand slaughtering men women and children plundering houses sacking mosques two days later when the killing stops not a single Muslim was Left Alive within the city walls some are taken advantage of the chaos to slip away escaping through Gates battered down by the attackers thousands of others lay in pools of Blood on the doorsteps of their homes or alongside their mosques among them were many imams ulama and Sufi Aesthetics who had forsaken their countries of origin for a life of Pious retreat in these holy places the last survivors were forced to perform the worst tasks to heave the bodies of their own relatives to dump them in vacant unmarked lots and then set them a light before being themselves massacred or sold into slavery the fate of Jews in Jerusalem was no less atrocious during the first hours of battle some participated in the defense of their quarter situated on the Northern edge of the city but when that part of the city walls overhanging their homes collapsed and the blonde Knights began to pour through the streets the Jews panicked reenacting an immemorial right the entire Community gathered in the main synagogue to pray the French barricaded all the exits and stacked all the bundles of wood they could find in a ring around the building the Temple was then put to the torch those who managed to escape were massacred in the neighboring Alleyways the rest were burned alive but how did Muslims initially treat the Christians of their lands when seemingly an army of Christ had arrived to conquer their home one example comes from The Lord of Antioch yagashian the pronunciation of which I probably butchered according to the Arab historian IBN al-atir more than a century later based on testimony of contemporaries this is what happened haunted by nightmares that he would only be defeated by the approaching Army through a betrayal from within the walls he sent the first Muslim men of the city out to dig ditches for the coming battle then the day after the Christian meant to do the same when they asked to return to their homes he said Antioch is your city but you must leave it in my hands until I have resolved our problems with the Franks they asked who will protect our women and children and the Emir responded I will take care of them for you he protected the families of those expelled refusing to allow anyone to touch her hair on their heads then when he was finally betrayed by someone of his own religion and the Crusaders made their way into the city not a single one of these women and children were left alive by the rampaging Crusader Army it's important to you to note that the supposed grievance justifying the Crusades in the first place was the conquest of the Levant by Muslims hundreds of years earlier this is what is used to rationalize the Crusades as a response to aggression however the actions taken by the Muslims who were invaded within living memory are far more easy to rationalize with his logic so when the Templars and hospitaliers were executed and the heads of ranks were stacked into pyramid-shaped piles following the Muslim reconquest of Jerusalem it is important to remember that these Frankish Invaders had come to their home and done this to them as well within living memory the people of the Levant had not set foot in modern day France no matter how much people like paxtube tried to paint all Muslims as the same and the conquests of Iberia are somehow performed by the peoples of the Levant one of the most viscerably horrifying and recurring images of the Crusades is that of the mistreatment of the Dead this for sure also took place on both sides I'm going to tell you about some Tendencies by the Crusaders that at least in the First Crusade I do not believe were present on the opposite side in the winter of 1098 the Crusader Army reached the city of maara in Northern Syria after he had sacked the city and put the inhabitants to the sword they retrieved the enemy corpses that had earlier been flung into ditches they filleted them into pieces and slices cook these and ate them the Frankish chronicler rat off of Cain confessed in maora our troops boiled Pagan adults and cooking pots they impale children on spits and devoured them grilled Thomas asbridge notes that radov's account doesn't occur in any Muslim Chronicles and so it may be apocryphal but vulture of shortless account of Crusader cannibalism is not the eyewitness chroniclers report these events with horror claiming it was done out of desperation and hunger some contemporary sources make it seem more like a product of some fanaticism reducing the enemies of the Crusaders into less than human things for their consumption I believe the truth probably lies somewhere in between with official letters to the pope claiming great hunger no doubt being partially true while also serving to rationalize the horrible things the authors of the letters were witnessing paxtube's narrative is rooted in what he's read by John J O'Neill whose work itself is rooted in the parent thesis a framing of the Crusades by Belgian historian Ari pren ore peran lived and died before the beginning of World War II and his thesis at this point while interesting and important for the development of the historiography on the Crusades is completely outdated this conception belongs to the historians of the 1800s to whom the Crusades were defensive Wars rational responses to irrational and unrestrained Muslim expansionism this conception is one of incompatible so-called civilizations colliding in an existential conflict these are the terms in which Pax tube speaks of the Crusades and while he speaks of the Crusades as a defensive measure in his so-called Clash of civilizations he also speaks of so-called demographic changes of Muslims immigrating from the East to push out or replace the Christian population due to fear of demonetization since I need to be able to pay rent I can't really delve into this particular part of the topic to a degree that I would consider satisfactory I will however do what I can speaking euphemistically whenever necessary before I continue with this part I'm going to mention that I am Norwegian and that's somewhat important for why I decided to make this the topic of my video it's also why I can't fully treat this with the same emotional Detachment I might treat another topic and why this video is maybe not as funny or filled with jokes as some of my others the rhetoric surrounding the Crusades employed here by Pax 2 were rooted in the puren thesis is the same sort that has appeared in the media outlets and manifests also far-right organizations and lone actors axtube while no doubt being islamophobic overtly homophobic and more I think is too stupid to recognize what he's actually doing his rhetoric directly ties back to far-right terrorists such as the one who in 2011 blew up the Norwegian Parliament with a car bomb and murdered 69 young left-wing political activists his Manifesto bore a bright red cross on a white background the symbol that in popular conception is associated with the Knights Templar the terror attack fell on July 22nd the same day the Crusaders celebrated the victory of the First Crusade and the creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem in his Manifesto the terrorists described himself as a crusader and a knight of the Knights Templar his manifest those title Bears a reference to 1683 the year of the battle of Vienna in which the Ottoman Empire was defeated by among others the Holy Roman Empire and Poland Lithuania Pax tube makes explicit reference to this battle himself and also ties it to the Crusades in the same way as the terrorists in a way Theologian Marius muirland from the University of Oslo called an alternative read incorrect way of understanding history one of the most cited websites in the manifesto of this white supremacist fascist mass murderer is the far-right blog Gates of Vienna among the four citations offered by paxter then his video one of them is a link to Gates of Vienna the past is gone but history which is our interpretation of the past exists with us in the present what we make of the past and how that interpretation affects us in the present is also a part of History which is why it's important we get it right hackstube is a far-right loser who made a poorly researched dog [ __ ] video justifying one of the worst epochs of European history in order to serve his political goals he has an effect reproduced the rhetoric of a man who murdered 77 of my countrymen and psychologically scarred countless more they will likely never have peace it's my sincere hope Pax tube never will either and that the day that he will see his Christian hell comes soon thanks for watching foreign [Music] [Music]