In the last couple of days, the media has seen a number of headlines pointing to the apparent "diversity" of the Latin crusaders so many centuries ago. For example, The Guardian ran a story entitled, "Crusader armies were remarkably genetically diverse, study finds," and CNN went with, "Skeleton DNA reveals surprising backgrounds of Crusader soldiers." But these were relatively mild compared to others—Newsweek telling us, "Ancient DNA of Crusaders Reveals Warriors Were Also Lovers," the Daily Mail exclaiming, "Crusaders married local women, had families and their sons fell in battle as they tried to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity, study reveals," and The Independent went so far as to blatantly claim, "Fighters in Crusades had families with locals and recruited offspring to cause, study shows."

It is easy to imagine that the media felt they were landing a serious blow against the far-right and traditionalist Catholics by running all of these on Maundy Thursday. After all, the Washington Post has told us, "Islamophobes want to recreate the Crusades. But they don’t understand them at all," NPR similarly pointing to academia, "Scholars Say White Supremacists Chanting 'Deus Vult' Got History Wrong," and even History.com ran a piece entitled, "How Hate Groups are Hijacking Medieval Symbols While Ignoring the Facts Behind Them," wherein it is falsely claimed that the Romano-Egyptian Saint, Maurice of Thebes, was "a black Catholic saint" of "African descent."

Academia and the media are unified in wanting to convince us that Europe was never for Europeans, and that extends to subverting the height of European religion, society, art, architecture, and so on. In the History piece, for example, Cord J. Whitaker, a black professor of medieval literature at Wellesley College, claims that "Northern Europe in the Late Middle Ages—even the Middle Ages generally—was an incredibly diverse space," and his cited evidence is that two bodies from Roman London show possible Near Eastern and North African ancestry, which is to really say Caucasians from the Hellenistic Mediterranean. These sort of sweeping claims backed by little, no, or only wildly manipulated evidence are the bread and butter of both academia and the media when it comes to European history. Indeed, ponder the claim and the evidence cited for it—the whole of Northern Europe was "incredibly diverse" throughout the Middle Ages, and we know that because two Caucasians in Roman London might have been from Roman North Africa or the Roman Near East, both of which had been occupied by Hellenistic whites since even before the Romans.

This is precisely the sort of baseless nonsense we find with the new genetic study being peddled by the media. Marc Haber, a Jewish fellow at the Wellcome Sanger Institute who worked on the study, claims that their research gives an "unprecedented view" and that it was surprising "to learn how diverse genetically the Near East was during the Crusaders’ time: We see Europeans, Near Easterners and their mixed descendants living—and dying—side by side." So what exactly did they study and what were the findings that could justify the sweeping claims of Haber and the media? As it happens, they studied a grand total of 9 out of 25 (36%) samples from a burial site in Sidon, Lebanon. Of those, two showed some mixed ancestry, and one of those could easily be explained away as a Spaniard with a parent of Moorish (Spanish Arabic) descent. Importantly, the bodies from the burial site cannot be specifically identified, and it is not known whether or not they were all soldiers, all from the same side, or anything else with any specificity. And yet we are supposed to assume that they were all crusaders, that they all died together, that the two of mixed ancestry were sons of crusaders, and that they were representative of the Latin East.

But why should we make any of these assumptions? After all, the researchers openly acknowledge that modern Lebanese people show little genetic difference from their ancestors in Late Antiquity, but still they insist that it is a "fact that significant mixing had taken place" during the Crusades. Consider: it is known that Sidon was besieged and fell to the Saracens in 1249, which fits with the dating of the burial site and would also explain why the bodies were thrown into a pit, burned, and then buried, all a common way of avoiding disease during a siege. Immediately, we can see why we should make no assumption about the identities or allegiances of any Near Eastern or mixed-ancestry samples since the defenders would have burned any and all corpses after repelling an assault, including slain enemies. Furthermore, we should not even assume that the European samples are representative of the Crusader States as it is known that France continuously provided the bulk of resident crusaders—so much so that the Latins became known collectively in the Holy Land as "the Franks"—yet the European samples were shown to be from Spain and Italy.

This helps to highlight precisely how our history is easily manipulated by both liberal academics and the liberal media. When presented with evidence that can be read in more than one way, they always interpret it in the way friendliest to their worldview, even if it requires infinitely more assumptions to fit the facts presented. It would not be remarkable at all to find a burial site contemporary to a siege with the bodies of both defenders and attackers. Likewise, it would not be shocking to find a Spaniard with Moorish ancestry, or a Lebanese Christian with a European father in a European stronghold in Lebanon. But we must accept the interpretation friendliest to modern globalism: namely, that the crusaders at Sidon were mostly non-European, that European heritage was unimportant to those who had it, and that their supposed diversity was representative of the Latin East in its entirety. In other words, we should not care that the Third World is invading today because a minority of Latin crusaders centuries ago took Lebanese Christian wives or concubines in Lebanon.

We are to think that our ancestors all shared a worldview with the leftists of today. They were tolerant of other religions, freely engaged in miscegenation, and never cared one bit about defending Europe from foreigners. This is despite them waging centuries of wars and inquisitions against infidels, there being no genetic evidence in Europe or the Near East of mass miscegenation by Europeans, and centuries of wars aimed at keeping various iterations of Muslims out of Europe entirely, not to mention the fact that they were the same people who produced the supposedly racist systems of oppression for which their descendants are endlessly blamed today.

We must recognize that the Left has been playing a long con of credentialism as part of their slow march through the institutions of the West. Non-white activists majoring in European history, literature, art, or the like are no different than an atheist or rabbi majoring in New Testament theology. They are not doing so out of a genuine love for the subject matter, but they are rather seeking ways to subvert and destroy all that you love while having the credentials that are supposed to silence any questions or criticism. If a "professor" or "distinguished fellow" says it, you are to accept it without question or critique. And they have worked for decades to brainwash the masses into accepting this system because they know that their claims could not stand up to even the slightest bit of legitimate scrutiny. You might want to ask how they can make sweeping claims about an entire region over the course of centuries based on just two samples, but they will respond, "Are you a racist? We have the credentials, and only racists question our findings in favor of the beauty of diversity."