Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomine Tuo, da gloriam

Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but to Thy Name give glory


Doing my bit to display some Kafir Pride, covering the European and Asian sides of my heritage.  The knight is from “Crusader“, by Paul Raymond Gregory — commissioned as cover art for the 1983 Saxon album of the same name.  The kanji characters on the right read as juujigun — meaning crusade or crusader.  The literal translation of the characters is “Army of the Cross”.

And appropriately enough here are some tunes by NWOBHM stalwart Saxon, celebrating the more muscular aspects of English and Japanese culture.

      1. Saxon - To Live by the Sword - Lionheart (2004)

      2. Saxon - English Man 'o' War - Lionheart (2004)

israel_coat_of_arms kingdom_of_jerusalem

Category: Pro Victoria
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
5 Responses
  1. Alan says:

    Wasn’t “kaffer” also what South African whites called South African blacks? While I get the point, I am uncomfortable accepting anyone’s slur as my rallying cry. One of the points of confidence of free persons or nations is the denial of the labels others would put upon them. Plus, it is hard enough dealing in my business life with MacDonalds let alone others that fall into this supposed category.

  2. Chris Taylor says:

    Fine, don’t mention “kafir” on your blog, then.
    By all means pick a non-offensive name that neither Caucasians nor black South Africans nor Muslims have ever used in a pejorative sense and could not possibly misinterpret. How about “Argonauts”? Or “Cubs”?
    I’d be happy to be identified with both black South Africans and dar al-Harb. That’s the point.
    I’m a little more concerned about the folks that think it’s perfectly acceptable to wage earthly war for heavenly raisins, and whose attitudes towards non-Muslim Africans (black, white or otherwise), is every bit as despicable as apartheid.

  3. Alan says:

    My point being I would not anymore use a word that the Nazi used for Jews any more than the words the apartheidists chose for their racism. As I said, I appreciate the point but letting the debate and the language be framed by the boneheaded terrorists is lowering the discourse. The reason they are wrong is because they haven’t got a clue, because they are dogs, because they spit on their own faith. It is a weakness that is needing crushed. I don’t have to learn to speak like them to laugh at them as I wish and would will their destruction.
    I would recommend for consideration the act of the old Cossak at the end of Gogol’s story the “Wedding Party” – he knew what to do.

  4. Chris Taylor says:

    I am sympathetic to this line of argument, but I am mindful that the practitioners of apartheid got their word from its Arabic root. The Afrikaners later transmogrified its meaning into something else — devoid of religious import — but its original (and still derogatory) “unbeliever” definition is understood and in current use today. I don’t think anyone stumbling across this blog would mistake its use here for an endorsement of apartheid.
    I think the efforts of GLBT activists, with regard to their appropriation of “gay” and “queer”, is a better template than staying away from kafir entirely. Better to redefine it as a point of pride than have it remain verboten for all time.
    Terrorism is really only one aspect of the problem. There’s an attitude at work that excuses horrors like “honour” killings in the guise of sharia. Or the requirement to produce four male eyewitnesses to validate a claim of rape. If terrorists are spitting on their faith, there are plenty of nonviolent adherents spitting right alongside them.
    Islam must learn, as have other faiths, that the secular state is the best guarantor of liberty for all — religious and non-religious.

  5. Alan says:

    Fair enough and all good comment – it just seems to me that the terrorists are the kafir.