On Constitutions and Eternity

Constitutions are means to constitute what are the fundamental rules of governance for an organisation, whether it is a bridge club, the local rugby club, the Swiss Federation, Apple Inc or the even the Soviet Union. The American constitution is the most infamous codified constitution known, I would imagine and being an expression of the enlightenment, it should be something I am instinctively against, and I am, on an instinctive, idealistic plane. However, it seems that the days of kings and chivalry are long over, and to codify how much you can get screwed by the government may actually be important. The American constitution is enlightening,(not in that way!) for one reason it should not be, it proves that all constitutions can be ignored and overthrown whilst feigning loyalty to it. The American government today is obviously in breach of the spirit of the constitution as well as many of its clauses. The most infamous being Obama’s questionable place of birth and his obstruction of people trying to discover whether he is in fact a natural-born citizen. Others that I can think of off the top of my head would be the existence of a massive national security apparatus, a permanent established army of many millions of men, the CIA, FBI, NSA among others, surveillance on a massive, unholy scale that would have terrified the writers of the constitution, a presidency that seems to be powerful without any limits, whose occupants can issue decrees, some of which are only known to people in government. The Supreme Court is too high and mighty for its boots, and no one is willing to challenge it, it holds more power than any king ever did, whatever it says in inviolable, and no one seems to think, ‘hey, wait a sec’.

So constitutions, whether written and codified or not as is the case with Britain, can be and currently are being subverted by a nasty clique that seems intent on destroying us. Now, it does seem that the American constitution is faring a little bit better than the British one, which has been swept away in the last thirty years. But the American one seems to be kept in its procedures, more than in its original intent or its spirit. The American government will tie itself in knots trying to make everything ‘constitutional’ whether it is or not. The Supreme Court seems to be able to say that the constitution can mean anything, it means every woman is entitled to kill her child in utero apparently, although I’ve never seen that section or article myself. Recently the Supreme Court said that Obamacare was ‘constitutional’, whatever that means anymore. How?

The whole Constitution thing in America is actually keeping people from making the break they need to make, it is over, and it is time to begin again. The United States is finished as it was, whether you believe it was good or bad, doesn’t matter, it’s over! Now, you have to look for something else, whether it is a ‘white republic’ or a Vermont republic or an independent Texas or whatever, but you need to start again.

It is the same over here in Europe, we can’t go back, it is too late, the UK is over too, at some point Scotland and Wales will go independent, England will be in chaos due to the race problems, and the rest of Europe, well it is anyone’s guess. But the old order is coming to an end. I sometimes wonder what people though in the year 400 as they looked forward, would they have foreseen the end of Rome in 76 years, earlier if you count the second sack of Rome, or would they have thought things would continue just as they had been for four hundred years?

The transformation from hegemon to ruin took place over a fifty year period of immigration, economic crisis, wars and political crises, it dragged on for decades, until at some point people realised it was over. But even after the fall of Rome, many of the new kings and leaders considered themselves successors to Roman authority and would have protected Roman custom, even encouraged it, they would have relied on Latin or Greek speaking scribes, this was in no way a sudden collapse, it really was an evolution over time. It was only in 800 AD that a new Emperor was recognised in the West, and that was Charlemagne. So at some point between 476 and 800, it was realised that the Roman Empire in the West had collapsed. over 300 years!

Now, if you were in the future looking back on now, what do you think this period would be?

I don’t think its the German crossing of the Rhine in 406, I think that was like our Empire Windrush in 1948.

What about our sack of Rome? Could that be Detroit? London last year? Paris in 2005? Or is that still to come?

We can know we are not at the end, as that would take a formal abdication of power, but how long off is that?

Even after the fall of Rome, I imagine that there were many city dwellers and peasants and Senators and soldiers and traders who thought it would all go back to how it’s always been, perhaps with a German Emperor instead, but can anyone have realised what lay in store for them and their progeny? The division of the West into thousands of autonomous polities and semi autonomous polities, the sacking and destruction of the richest part of the world in less than 200 years time, and it’s forced conversion to Islam. The blending of the German overloads and the Gallic, Hispanic, Italic and Britannic into new races of men, the birth of dozens of new languages, the thousand-year long war with Islam with the Mediterranean as a frontline instead of the nice cosy safe bit at the centre of the known world.

Nothing would ever be the same, and we still live with the consequences, what will the world be like in 76 years? How about 200? We can’t know and the arrogance of those who think the American constitution will last forever, just because it has lasted the previous two centuries, is baffling.

A constitution should be useful, and let’s be honest, can only work when you have a virtuous people. America has neither.





To understand the problem we need to revisit The Jewish Chronicle’s archives. On September 30, 1994, it published an article (“Let’s Remove the Blinkers”) by Sir Alfred Sherman, former advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and co-founder of the Centre for Policy Studies. Sherman warned that the Muslims’ objective was “to create a ‘Green Corridor’ from Bosnia through the Sanjak to Kosovo” that would separate Serbia from Montenegro. Western powers are “in effect fostering this Islamistan,” Sherman warned, and developing “close working relations with Iran, whose rulers are keen to establish a European base for their politico-religious activities.” In addition, “Washington is keen on involving its NATO ally Turkey, which has been moving away from Ataturk’s secularist and Western stance back to a more Ottomanist, pan-Muslim orientation, and is actively helping the Muslim forces.”

Sherman’s 1994 diagnosis proved to be prescient. Over a decade later it was echoed by Col. Shaul Shay of BESA Center at Bar-Ilan University, in his book “Islamic Terror and the Balkans” (Transaction Publishers, 2008). Shay noted that “the Balkans serve as a forefront on European soil for Islamic terror organizations, which exploit this area to promote their activities in Western Europe, and other focal points worldwide.” His conclusions were unambiguous: “[T]he establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania… is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century.” Shay’s account shows how the Bosnian war provided the historical opportunity for radical Islam to penetrate the Balkans at a time when the Muslim world – headed by Iran and the various Islamic terror organizations, including al-Qaeda – came to the aid of the Muslims. The Jihadist operational and organizational infrastructures were thus established in the heart of Europe.

BACK TO “SREBRENICA” – As I wrote in this column a year ago, “Srebrenica” is used by the apologists for the American intervention in Bosnia on the side of the Muslims not as a geographic location that needs to be preceded by a noun (“the massacre in…”) but as a stand-alone term that denotes horror, on par with “Auschwitz” or “Hiroshima.” Oliver Kamm and his late role-model Christopher Hitchens provide a paradigmatic example of the species.

I have said it before, and I repeat now: “Srebrenica” used in this sense is a myth based on a lie. The upholders of the lie deny that there is anything to question: thousands of Muslim prisoners were allegedly executed by the Serbs and a distinguished international judicial forum of unquestioned authority has found it to constitute genocide, so according to Kamm there is nothing to debate because everything is settled and clear.

Reasonable people with no ethno-religious axe to grind in the Balkan quagmire have long fought this black-and-white version, however, including the claim that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed in cold blood and the systematic misuse of the term “genocide.” But let me get back to that article of mine, behind which I stand as firmly today as I did at the time of its writing.

The fact beyond dispute is that during the Bosnian war thousands of Muslim men were killed in the region of Srebrenica. Most of them died in July of 1995 when the enclave fell almost without a fight to the Bosnian Serb Army and the Muslim garrison—the 28th division of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Army—attempted a breakthrough. A significant number reached safety at the Muslim-held town of Tuzla, 60 km to the north; a few found shelter in Serbia, across the Drina River to the east. An unknown were killed while fighting their way through; and many others—numbers remain disputed—were taken prisoner and executed by the Bosnian Serb army.

The numbers remain unknown and misrepresented. With “8,000 executed” and—inevitably—thousands more killed in the fighting or reaching the Muslim lines, the column attempting to break out should have counted 12 to 15,000 men—an impossibly large number. There should have been huge gravesites and satellite evidence of executions, burials, and body removals. The UN searches in the Srebrenica vicinity, breathlessly frantic at times, still falls far short of the sanctified figure of 8,000. The Islamic shrine at Potocari, where the supposed victims are buried, includes those of many soldiers killed in action, Muslim and Serb, between May 1992 and July 1995, at different locations all over the region.

The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague (ICTY) never came up with a conclusive breakdown of casualties. That a war crime did take place is undeniable. The number of its victims remains forensically and demographically unproven. According to the former BBC reporter Jonathan Rooper, “from the outset the numbers were used and abused” for political purposes. The number of likely casualties corresponds closely to the ‘missing’ list of 7,300 compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Rooper says.  But the early estimates were based on nothing more than the simple combination of an estimated 3,000 men last seen at the UN base at Potocari and an estimated 5,000 people reported ‘to have left the enclave before it fell’:

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the 7-8,000 figure is that it has always been represented as synonymous with the number of people executed.  This was never a possibility: numerous contemporary accounts noted that UN and other independent observers had witnessed fierce fighting with significant casualties on both sides. It was also known that others had fled to Muslim-held territory around Tuzla and Zepa, that some had made their way westwards and northwards, and that some had fled into Serbia.  It is therefore certain that nowhere near all the missing could have been executed.

The Red Cross reported at the time that some 3,000 Bosnian Army soldiers managed to reach Muslim lines near Tuzla and were redeployed by the Bosnian Army “without their families being informed.” The number of military survivors was also confirmed by Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic in his testimony at The Hague.

The last census results, from 1991, counted 37,211 inhabitants in Srebrenica and the surrounding villages, of which 27,118 were Muslims (72.8 percent) and 9,381 Serbs (25.2 percent). Displaced persons from Srebrenica registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian government in early August 1995 totaled 35,632. With 3,000 Muslim men who reached Tuzla “without their families being informed” we come to the figure of over 38,000 survivors. The Hague Tribunal’s own estimates of the total population of the Srebrenica enclave before July 1995—notably that made by Judge Patricia Wald—give 40,000 as the maximum figure. It just does not add up.

Having spent five days interviewing over 20,000 Srebrenica survivors at Tuzla a week after the fall of the enclave, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Henry Wieland declared, “We have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place.” A decade later a Dutch field investigator, Dr. Dick Schoonoord, confirmed Wieland’s verdict: “It has been impossible during our investigations in Bosnia to find any people who witnessed the mass murder or would talk about the fate of the missing men.”

A “PROTECTED ZONE”?—It is often pointed out that Srebrenica was an UN “protected zone,” but it is seldom noted that the enclave was simultaneously an armed camp used for attacks against Serb villages in the surrounding areas. Muslim General Sefer Halilovic confirmed in his testimony at the Hague Tribunal that there were at least 5,500 Bosnian Muslim Army soldiers in Srebrenica after it had obtained the “safe haven” status, and that he had personally arranged numerous deliveries of sophisticated weapons by helicopter.

French General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR commander who first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave, is adamant that the crimes committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable. He testified at The Hague Tribunal on February 12, 2004, that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” Asked by the ICTY prosecutor how Oric treated his Serb prisoners, General Morillon, who knew him well, replied that “Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the population itself… he didn’t even look for an excuse… One can’t be bothered with prisoners.”

Cees Wiebes, who wrote the intelligence section of the Dutch Government report on Srebrenica, notes that despite signingthe demilitarization agreement, Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were heavily armed and engaged in provocations (“sabotage operations”) against Serbian forces. Professor Wiebes caused a storm with his book Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995, detailing the role of the Clinton administration in allowing Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims.

On 11 July, 1995, the Muslim garrison was ordered to evacuate the town which the Serbs entered unopposed. Local Deputy Director of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, wrote in 2004 (“Was Srebrenica a Hoax?”) that Muslim forces did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery because “military resistance would jeopardize the image of ‘victim,’ which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered vital to maintain.”

POLITICAL BACKGROUND—Two prominent supporters (at the time) of the late Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, his Srebrenica SDA party chairman Ibran Mustafic and police commander Hakija Meholjic, have subsequently accused Izetbegovic of deliberately sacrificing the enclave in order to trigger NATO intervention. Meholjic is explicit: in his presence, Izetbegovic quoted Bill Clinton as saying that 5,000 dead Muslims would be sufficient to provide the political basis for an American-led intervention on the side of the Muslims.

Testifying at The Hague Tribunal, Muslim Generals Halilovic and Hadzihasanovic confirmed this theory by describing how 18 top officers of the Srebrenica garrison were abruptly removed in May 1995.  Ibran Mustafic, the former head of the Muslim SDA party in Srebrenica, is adamant that the scenario for the sacrifice of Srebrenica was carefully prepared:

Unfortunately, the Bosnian presidency and the Army command were involved in this business … Had I received orders to attack the Serb army from the demilitarized zone, I would have rejected to carry out that order. I would have asked the person who had issued that order to bring his family to Srebrenica, so that I can give him a gun let him stage attacks from the demilitarized zone. I knew that such shameful, calculated moves were leading my people to catastrophe. The order came from Sarajevo.

Military analyst Tim Ripley agrees that Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by the Muslim political leaders. He noted that Dutch UN soldiers “saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica past their observation points, carrying brand new anti-tank weapons [which] made many UN officers and international journalists suspicious.”

The term “genocide” is even more contentious than the exact circumstances of Srebrenica’s fall. Local chief of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, noted that if there had been a premeditated plan of genocide, instead of attacking in only one direction, from the south to the north—which left open escape routes to the north and west, the Serbs would have established a siege in order to ensure that no one escaped:

The UN observation posts to the north of the enclave were never disturbed and remained in activity after the end of the military operations. There are obviously mass graves in the outskirts of Srebrenica as in the rest of ex-Yugoslavia where combat has occurred, but there are no grounds for the campaign which was mounted, nor the numbers advanced by CNN. The mass graves are filled by a limited number of corpses from both sides, the consequence of heated battle and combat and not the result of a premeditated plan of genocide, as occurred against the Serbian populations in Krajina, in the Summer of 1995, when the Croatian army implemented the mass murder of all Serbians found there.

The fact that The Hague Tribunal called the massacre in Srebrenica “genocide” does not make it so. What plan for genocide includes offering safe passage to women and children? And if this was all part of a Serb plot to eliminate Muslims, what about hundreds of thousands of Muslims living peacefully in Serbia itself, including thousands of refugees who fled there from Srebrenica and other parts of Bosnia? Or the Muslims in the neighboring enclave of Žepa, who were unharmed when the Serbs captured that town a few days after capturing Srebrenica? To get around these common sense obstacles, the ICTY prosecution came up with a sociologist who provided an “expert” opinion: the Srebrenica Muslims lived in a patriarchal society, therefore killing the men was enough to ensure that there would be no more Muslims in Srebrenica. Such psychobabble turns the term “genocide” into a gruesome joke.

Yet it was on the basis of this definition that in August 2001, the Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of “complicity in genocide.” Even if the unproven figure of “8,000” is assumed, it affected less than one-half of one percent of Bosnia’s Muslim population in a locality covering one percent of its territory. On such form, the term “genocide” loses all meaning and becomes a propaganda tool rather than a legal and historical concept. On that form, America’s NATO ally Turkey—a major regional player in today’s Balkans—committed genocide in northern Cyprus in 1974. On that form, no military conflict can be genocide-free.

The accepted Srebrenica story, influenced by war propaganda and uncritical media reports, is neither historically correct nor morally satisfying. The relentless Western campaign against the Serbs and in favor of their Muslim foes—which is what “Srebrenica” is really all about—is detrimental to the survival of our culture and civilization. It seeks to give further credence to the myth of Muslim blameless victimhood, Serb viciousness, and Western indifference, and therefore weaken our resolve in the global struggle euphemistically known as “war on terrorism.” The former is a crime; the latter, a mistake. Oliver Kamm is guilty of both.



Brigitte Bardot and Marine LePen

Well, the French presidential race is hotting up and it remains to be seem whether enough French people have the sense to vote Marine LePen into the Elysee Palace. Whether she could even do very much once there would be a concern, but at least, it would be a huge symbolic victory for our side, LePen seems to be a good debater, she does not seem crazy, she looks good, she is elegant. She also knows how to talk to the French people, she criticises ‘capitalism’, immigration and the over mighty EU, she does this in an intelligent way and well, one hopes beyond hope that she can make it.

Marine LePen

Marine LePen

I read an article on the official state sponsored France 24, you can see it here. In this opinion piece, the writer attempts to savage Brigitte Bardot, the former actress who now campaigns against animal cruelty, especially ritual slaughter of animals for Muslims, she has been convicted five times for ‘racial hatred against Muslims’ as the writer mentions twice in his piece, he refers to Bardot as an ‘old bag’, he compares her to the local crazy old racist we ‘all avoid’ if they lived in our neighbourhood! Hmmm, well, the comments were interesting, as they are in so many places nowadays, most of the comments I read laid into the writer, accusing him of showing disrespect for the old, accusing him of not knowing about Islam and the dangers posed and mocking him as a coward for not putting his name to the piece. Indeed it seems odd that France 24 should be so partisan, it is the French equivalent to BBC World, and although the BBC are quite blatant about their prejudices, there are nowhere near as bad as France 24

‘Once upon a time, she was France’s most alluring actress and a source of Gallic pride. Today, she’s deemed a pesky old bag and an embarrassment to her fellow countrymen. One thing’s for sure – Brigitte Bardot is still a great source of entertainment.

 At 22 she was the darling of France, a talented and beautiful actress who nobody could keep their eyes off. At 77, she’s like that racist old neighbour that you avoid in the street – the one that values puppies over asylum seekers.’

So, the writer is telling us we should value ‘asylum seekers’, when was the last time an actual ‘asylum seeker’ seeked asylum? All of the immigrants I see are just here for free money, none of them complain very much about their homelands, indeed some of them love their homelands so much, they are attempting to turn Europe into a version of them by forcing us to assimilate into their backward cultures!

But crafty old Bardot saw straight through them. She knows all too well that the only politician who really, truly hates Muslims enough to pretend to care for animal rights, is far-right darling Marine Le Pen (MLP). She, of course, would have no qualms in banning halal abattoirs in France. After all, the country’s five-million Muslims rely on them. No more halal… no more Muslims? And it would all be done in the name of animal rights, naturally. Bleat it lambs, MLP for president! 

Brigitte Bardot

Brigitte Bardot

Already convicted five times for inciting racial hatred against Muslims, Bardot is back, and this time she’s got the presidential palace in her sights.

Again, the hatred toward France is palpable here, whoever this guy is, needs to get the hell out of France and leave people who actually love the place.

We can only imagine were that ‘rightful spot’ might be – a kitten-filled paradise where Muslims have their throats slit by cows?’

More lies and slurs against the French, why should they have to tolerate millions of aliens in their once fair land, why should one of the great nations of Europe allow itself to be overrun by teaming multitudes of hateful, angry, unemployed misfits?

Some of the comments:

‘Loves dogs, hates muslims, huh? She has the right idea, for sure. We need many more Brigitte Bardots. More who acknowledge the criminality of the muslim “religion”, more who condemn and punish the atrocities the muslims perpetrate on people of all faiths. Vive le Bardot!I’d say she talks a lot more sense that you do. Your blog post is so politically correct it’s embarrassing. It’s also riddled with prejudice against older people through the use of words like “doddering”. You would never dream of employing comparably unflattering adjectives when talking about Muslims. But you have been indoctrinated to believe that the de-Europeanisation of Europe is good and anyone who has qualms about it must be evil’

‘Ms. Bardot is correct on both counts: Her concern for animals and her understanding of true Islam. Nothing good has ever come out of Islam. One can only assume that the idiot calling Ms. Bardot, “An old bag,” is a Muslim. Such disrespect for an elderly woman or any woman for that matter, only comes from those who are enslaved by Islam, or their stooges. If the people of France had any pride at all in their history and culture they would expel that plague which has invaded them from the East.’

‘Where is out Le Penn here in England? The French hate muslims in their country as much as we English do. Any step that may put them off staying/coming is a good one. Well said Bridget!’

‘1 Mr. SARKOZY, not ”Zarkozy” (learn to spell, your post is awful) is French and the president of the Republic. Which can only mean that you are not the President, obviously (thank God). His rich background makes him proud 2- Algeria and Tunisia treated french immigrants with hostile racism. The pieds noir had nothing to do with colonization, they just wanted to live in the region. Their expulsion is a far cry from how rude & unpatriotic French-Algerians are treated in France 3-Get a grip on your ego 4-get a grip on your ego and show some respect and decency or seize sharing your backward thinkibng with the masses’

‘Typically, liberal columnists resort to grotesque ad hominem attacks when their arguments fail to hold water. Brigitte Bardot is a supporter of animal rights. It is, therefore, consistent, that she should oppose the innate cruelty of halal meat production. Quite how that makes her a ‘racist’ (the unanswerable insult of choice for all Leftists) is beyond me. And is ‘old’ now smething to be ashamed of, too?’

‘What a nasty article.’

‘i would choose Bardots values above those of fanatical moslems any day and the ridicule within this article shows that the writer fears Bardots views as they are very widely held…..’

‘It is blogs like this that make me want to puke. What horrible writing. Just calling a bad literary piece what it is.’

‘Animals live in agony and pain in Muslim countries, that is a fact. They treat animals very badly, I have seen it myself. They see western women as “bitches” and desecrate our churches by turning it into Mosques.’

‘By all means, this author’s views should be accepted. Shut down that evil racist Bardot! How dare she stand up for the nation of France… a nation that is faced with the destructive forces of “multiculturalism.” And if France pulls back from the precipice of multiculturalism, it may survive as a nation-state…. Unless, of course, unions and “welfare lifestyle” citizens continue to such the lifeblood out of this important nation.’

‘Mon Belle Brigitte she is a real true patriot and loves her native France. She hates what France has become with all the foreigners especially the musslims who despise the west. She is the modern symbol of Liberty. France needs to be returned to the French or the foreigners need to embrace the rich French culture and democracy’

‘Why is this author so hateful and contemptuous of Bardot? Her name will be remembered long after he is completely forgotten.’

‘It seems to me the author is pretty hateful too. What a personal attack on someone with a different view. I wouldn’t call this journalism and its not why if read France 24. This is a personal attack disguised as a news.’

It seems to me, that the comments on many articles, from left leaning outlets like the Guardian, to the Telegraph, from the Mail to the BBC and now even France 24, are showing the cracks in the false reality our elites have enforced on us for decades now, people are speaking out, it almost seems like people don’t care about being called ‘racist’ anymore. I hope that this is true, and I hope it continues. We need people like Marine LePen, the Front National and ‘crazy old bags’ like Bardot to show people the truth and to show people there is a way out of the catastrophe of the modern West.

Slavery alive and well in Africa

I’m posting this not really because I hate slavery, it is after all an ancient custom, one that permeates all civilisations. I post it more as proof that the race hustlers, in all parts of the west, are huge hypocrites. The peoples of the west are constantly bombarded with dishonest propaganda, inferring that we, and only we, are a nasty, brutish, oppressive peoples, who invented slavery. In the minds of those who hate us, we enslaved the noble black man, kidnapping him from his home, forcing him to ‘build’ our civilisation and then raped them all just for a laugh!

Well, most sensible people will realise that this is a lie, I previously posted an article about the Arab slave trade and the raids on Iceland by the Corsairs. Many thousands of Icelanders were stolen from that desolate land and sold into slavery in the slave markets of Barbary, many of the women and boys would become sex slaves to the depraved Beys, Sheiks and others wealthy enough to pay for it, the men would be condemned to be galley slaves. In my own country the little village of Baltimore was sacked by the Corsairs and almost all the residents carried off into slavery, only two would ever see home again, in Newfoundland, England and France, coastal communities were under threat, fishing boats and merchant ships were often seized and their crews sold in the markets of Barbary, the seized ships being refitted to become pirate ships. Whole sections of the Spanish and Italian coasts were abandoned, or so ravaged by slavers, that there was no one left to live there, excepting a few large, well defended port cities.

Well, it seems that slavery is still alive and well in Africa, well we all knew this anyway, but here is a story that needs to be thrown into every liberals/negroes face when they make some clueless remark about whitey!

An estimated 10% to 20% of Mauritania’s 3.4 million people are enslaved — in “real slavery,” according to the United Nations’ special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, Gulnara Shahinian. If that’s not unbelievable enough, consider that Mauritania was the last country in the world to abolish slavery. That happened in 1981, nearly 120 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States. It wasn’t until five years ago, in 2007, that Mauritania passed a law that criminalized the act of owning another person. So far, only one case has been successfully prosecuted.

The country is slavery’s last stronghold.


I would disagree about the last stronghold bit, it is alive and well in most of Africa, as well as in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other more primitive parts of the third world, but I repeat myself. The story by the insufferable CNN is a good one, but they seem to think slavery is on its way out, which it isn’t. Slavery one of the most ancient of stations may not be called slavery anymore, but is does still exist, and once the west’s moral imperialism has faded, it will once again thrive in the more primitive parts of the world, indeed it is already returning to lands which were once free, Pakis importing Pakis into England, where they force them to work as slaves, and rape and beat them to their heart’s content. We have also seen the Pakis enslave white girls, turning them into prostitutes, so no, slavery is not gone, it has only changed.

Slavery was one of those things that only white people have ever tried to ban, a bit like when white people banned the Thugs and Suttee in India, and cannibalism among the blacks, but as we lose our confidence, as we retreat and surrender more ground, as we allow our faith and culture to die, we shall see, and are already seeing a rebirth in the dark things that we put under foot.

The world without a confident, faithful white man, is a world of darkness and unimaginable horror, that seems to be our future now!

Corsairs in Iceland

 by Bernard LEWIS

For many centuries the Barbary corsairs had operated principally in galleys. These vessels required hundreds of rowers, who were expensive both to obtain and to maintain, and were in any case becoming more difficult to find. The cruising range of the galley was limited by the need to carry great quantities of food and water for the rowers, while its construction, designed for the calmer waters of the Mediterranean, made it unfit to with stand the heavier strains of the open ocean.

At the beginning of the 17th century, however, an important development took place which enabled the corsairs greatly to extend the scope and scale of their enterprises. After the death of Queen Elizabeth of England in 1603, the new king James I at last made peace with Spain, and by the treaty of 1604 the long maritime war between the two countries came to an end. At about the same time the long Spanish struggle with the Netherlands ended, and in 1609 Spain was finally compelled to recognize the independence of the Dutch. The many English and Dutch sea-rovers, who had played an important part in the struggle against Spain, now became not only unnecessary but a nuisance, and the English and other western governments began to adopt measures of increasing severity against their own pirates, for the protection of international trade. Many of these pirates, finding conditions in their own countries less and less favourable to the exercise of their profession, fled to the states of the North African littoral, where they received a ready welcome. English and Dutch pirates, accustomed to navigating the oceans of the world on square-rigged sailing ships with their armament disposed along their sides, introduced these vessels to their hosts, and instructed them in their construction and use. The corsairs, quick to realise the advantages of the broadside sailing-ship over the galley, mastered the arts of navigation and warfare with these new vessels with remarkable speed, and before long fleets from North Africa were sailing beyond the Straits of Gibraltar and ravaging as far away as Madeira, England and Ireland. Certainly their boldest venture was their raid on Iceland in the year 1627 (1).

The first published account of this expedition is that of the French priest Pierre Dan, who visited North Africa in 1634 to arrange for the redemption of Christian captives. In his history of the Barbary corsairs published in Paris in 1637, he tells briefly of an Algerian corsair raid on Iceland in 1627. It was carried out, he says, by three ships, and was led by a renegade of German origin known as Come Murat. The corsairs raided a number of different places on the Icelandic coast and carried off 400 captives (2).

A second French account dates from the year 1642. In that year Sieur Emanuel d’Aranda, about to leave Algiers on being ransomed from captivity, was approached by a young “Turk” who asked him to carry a letter to the Danish minister in Madrid. D’Aranda, puzzled by so odd a request, questioned the man, who turned out to be an Icelander converted to Islam. “Some years earlier”, the man told him, “an Icelandic renegade, having for long sailed with the corsairs of this city without making any prize, suggested to the captain that they should sail to Iceland”. The raid was made and produced 800 captives, many of whom were still awaiting ransom (3).

These two brief and contradictory accounts are all that, to my knowledge, is to be found in general Western sources of the time on the expedition to Iceland of the Algerian corsairs. So extraordinary an event, however, was not passed over in silence by the Icelanders themselves, nor by the Danes, to whose King Iceland was at that time subject. In both Icelandic and in Danish there is a considerable volume of material on the raid, and even a prayer in the Icelandic liturgy asking God for protection against “the cunning of the Pope and the terror of the Turk”.

The first account to be published was the narrative of Olafur Egilsson, an Icelandic priest from Heimaey, in the Vestmann islands, who was captured by the corsairs and taken to Algiers. After a short stay, he was sent by his captors to Copenhagen to negotiate with the Danish authorities for the ransom of the captives. His account of his adventures, from his capture to his return home on 6th July 1628, was first published in a Danish translation in 1641 (4). The Icelandic original was not printed until 1852, when it appeared in Reykjavik together with another brief and contemporary account by Klaus Eyjolfsson (5). Another important contemporary source, the Tyrkjarânssaga of Bjôrn Jônsson of Skardsà (1574-1655) was printed in 1866 (6). It was written in 1643, and based on the two above mentioned texts, supplemented by letters from captives in Algiers, oral information from ransomed captives, and a number of other written sources that are no longer extant. A critical study of the whole episode was published in Danish in 1 899 by the Icelandic scholar Sigfûs Blôndal (7). It was based not only on the printed sources then available, but also on a number of narratives and records then still in manuscript, including many letters from Icelandic and Danish captives preserved in various collections. Finally, in 1906-9, another Icelandic scholar, Jon Thorkelsson, published a volume of texts, containing all the known sources on the expedition. After a detailed historical introduction on the raid, its origin, course, and results, he gives critical texts of twelve different accounts of the expedition. These are followed by a collection of letters and other documents, including letters from prisoners, negotiations about ransoms, reports on the Icelandic captives in Algiers, accounts and correspondence on the collection of money and the arranging of ransoms. The volume ends with a collection of poems and ballads in Icelandic relating to the raid (8).

The story begins on 20th June 1627, when an Algerian ship entered the little port of Grindavfk, on the south coast of Reykjanes, the southernmost promontory on the west coast of Iceland. The origins of the raid are uncertain. Returned Icelandic captives said that the originator of the raid was a Danish captive in Algiers, whom they name only as Paul. In return for a promise of freedom he gave the corsairs information about the Northern Seas, which he knew well, and accompanied them on the raid. This man is probably identical with the Icelandic renegade mentioned by d’Aranda.

According to Icelandic reports twelve ships set out on the expedition, of which only four actually reached Iceland. The others probably went to England. The leader of the expedition was one Murad Reis, variously described as a German or Flemish ( = Dutch) renegade. The rest of the expedition was, as usual, of mixed origin — some Turks, some Western converts, as well as a number of Western captives employed as slaves. This is how Olafur Egilsson describes his captors. The reader will note Olafs naive astonishment that the dreaded corsairs looked “just like other people”, and his remark that it was the converts who behaved worst.

“Now I will say something about how these wicked people looked, both as regards their faces and their clothing, namely, that they were exactly like other people, unequal of height, some white, some with darker faces ; some were not Turks, but people of other countries, such as Norwegians, Danes, Germans and English ; of these, those who had not left their religion still wore their old clothes in which they had been captured, and had to do the most dangerous work that arose, and received blows as wages. But the Turks [i.e. Muslims] all had tall red caps, some cocked, with gold galloons, some with silk and others with braid ; they wore long robes, bound round with sashes, as their robes were very wide ; they wore tight canvas breeches, and many went barefoot, with iron heels under their feet ; they had black hair, and were shaved except over the mouth, where they had moustaches. The real Turks in their behaviour were just like other nations, if one may say so ; those who had been Christians and abandoned their faith followed in clothes, beards and other things the same usage as the Turks, and it was just these that killed people, cursed and beat them, and did all that is evil” (9).

When the corsair fleet arrived off Iceland, it was split up by a severe storm. One ship, separated from the others, entered Grindavik alone on 20th June. In the harbour lay a Danish merchant ship. The corsairs pretended to be whale- fishers, and thanks to this disguise were able to seize the cargo of the Danish ship without any difficulty. After a raid ashore they sailed out with booty and prisoners. On their way out they met another Danish merchant ship, which they boarded and captured, putting a corsair crew on board. One of the captured ships was sent back to Algiers with the booty ; the other two ships sailed round the west coast of Iceland in the direction of Faxa Bay.

News of the raid spread rapidly, causing great alarm. A system of signal warnings was arranged, and both people and ships assembled at Bessastadir. This town, lying in a small bay called Seila, a few miles south of Reyjavik, was the residence of the Danish governor of Iceland and the centre of administration throughout the 17th century. It so happened that at this time the famous Jon Olafsson, the Icelandic traveller who is remembered for his journey to India, was in Bessastadir on a visit, accompanied by some Frenchmen. His biography, written by his son Olafur Jônsson, gives the following account of the coming of the corsairs to Bessastadir :

“Jon Olafsson’s journey was deferred, and he received orders to stay until he should know for certain how matters stood. The Governor ordered all to be ready to take up their positions for defence, and Jon Olafsson and the Frenchmen were commanded to repair to the fort and be ready to fire the cannon when needed. But the Governor with his servants and a great number of Icelanders in large brass-bound saddles rode about keeping watch with long staves in their hands, so that it was as if one saw armoured men, when the sun shone on their saddle-bows.

And when they were all prepared for defence on land, the pirate ships began to sail into the harbour. When those on the ships and in the fort perceived this, they fired some salvos at them, and the pirates replied by firing on them on shore. But just this moment, by God’s appointed plan, one of the two robber vessels ran aground and stuck fast, for the tide was far out. This was the vessel which had the captive people on board and most of the goods. When the other pirates saw this, both vessels lowered their boats to remove the people and goods from the stranded vessel to the other, in order to lighten it, and they also threw overboard many barrels of goods, meal, oil and other liquids, which were heaviest, and which they had taken on Danish ships. The most part drifted ashore, and on these were the mark of the merchant Bogi Nielsson, merchant at Skutilsfjôrd. This Jon Olafsson recognized and so knew that a vessel from the Skutilsfjôrd port must have been captured by the pirates. While the pirates were splashing about and conveying men and goods from one ship to the other, the Danes left off firing at them, both from the Danish ships, and (alas ! ) from the fort, but the Icelanders desired to fire at them as much as possible while they were in these difficulties. But in this they did not have their way (10), and so the pirate ship floated off with the rising tide, and both left Seila, and sailed back along the south coast, and were seen no more until they came to the Vestmann Islands and plundered there in the month of June. These ships came to Seila shortly before the time of the Althing [Icelandic Parliament], and therefore neither the Governor, nor any of those then at Bessastadir, rode to the Althing that summer, by reason of the general terror” (11).

The vessels that later visited the Vestmann Islands were not in fact the same as those that had come to Bessastadir. These latter sailed home, without waiting for the others, and carried with them fifteen Icelandic and an unknown number of Danish captives.

Meanwhile two other ships sailed up the east coast. On 5th July they landed with four boats at the Herutsfjôrd, and left again on 13th July with booty and captives. After several other small raids they sailed south with 110 captives. Off the south coast they met the fourth ship and together sailed to the Vestmann Islands. On their way they met an English fishing boat and forced the captain to give them pilots for the dangerous passage into Kaupstad harbour.

The Vestmann Islands are a group of small islands four miles south of Iceland, of which only the largest, Heimaey, was inhabited. It had been raided several times earlier in the century by Spanish and English pirates. News of the approach of the corsairs reached the islanders, and the Icelandic sources tell of wild rumours of “Turks with claws instead of nails, spitting fire and sulphur, with knives growing out of their breasts, elbows, and knees”. The islanders hastily prepared defences around the Danish trading house.

On the morning of 16th July three ships were sighted approaching the island. Despite the preparations no serious resistance was offered, and the corsairs “were able to land three large forces. Much booty and many captives were taken, and a Danish merchant ship, the Krabbe, was seized in the port, filled with captives and manned by a corsair crew. The corsair flotilla fired nine shots from their cannon as a parting salute and sailed away with 242 captives.

The return journey to Algiers is vividly described by Olafur Egilsson, the captured priest from Heimaey. The weather was very bad, and for a week the Krabbe was separated from the other ships. The prisoners on the Krabbe outnumbered the corsairs several times, and planned to revolt and seize the ship. The plan, however, was betrayed and frustrated. One of the prisoners was a Dane who got into conversation with the Danish renegade Paul and, no doubt with the idea of making himself important, asked him how many mice were needed to kill a cat. Paul understood what was in his mind, and warned the other corsairs. The prisoners were put in irons until the Krabbe was able to rejoin the rest of the flotilla. Olafur Egilsson remarks that the prisoners were quite well treated on the journey, and notes with surprise that the Turks gave them beer, mead and brandy to drink while they themselves drank only water.

The captives were confined below decks, and, says Olafur Egilsson :

“Since it was dark there, they had lamps burning both night and day, and every evening food was prepared for us, and we were given the same dishes as the officers got in their cabin ; as long as the two tuns of beer and mead, which they seized in the merchants’ house in Vestmann Island, lasted, we were given drink from them. They destroyed all the drink in the merchants’ houses. Brandy they only gave us in the morning ; the Turks never drink anything but water” ( 1 2).

The ships returned to Algiers on 17th August, and the captives were sold. Olaf was sent to Copenhagen to arrange ransom, and considerable efforts were made to collect money for this purpose. A document of 1635 lists 31 men and 39 women as remaining in captivity, while another of the following year records the redemption of 34. The testimony of d’Aranda shows that some were still in Africa in 1 642. Two at least of the captives stayed voluntarily and made a career among the corsairs. One’ of them, Jon Asbjamarson, obtained a high post at the court of the Dey, while the other, Jôn Jônsson Vestmann, became a sea captain in the corsair service. After many adventures he finally returned to Europe and died in Copenhagen (13).

Bernard LEWIS

Professor of the History

of the Near and Middle

East, University of London

(1) See Ch. A. Julien, Histoire de l’Afrique du Nord. 2nd edition, revised by Roger Le Tourneau, II, Paris 1961, 274 ff. ; S. Lane-Poole, The Barbary Corsairs, London 1890, 228 ff. ; Aziz Samfli, Çimali Afrikada Tûrkler, Istanbul 1937, I, 174 ; R.C. Anderson, Naval wars in the Levant, Princeton 1952, 67 ff.

(2) Pierre Dan, Histoire de Barbarie et de ses Corsaires, Paris 1637, Book III, 276. “En 1627 trois vaisseaux d’Alger, conduits par un Renégat Allemand, nommé Corne Murat, furent si hardis que d’aller jusques’en Dannemarc, ou prenant terre en l’Isle d’Island, ils enlevèrent plusieurs mesnages escartes l’un de l’autre, & firent esclaves quatre cens personnes qu’ils emmenèrent”. In the Dutch translation of Dan’s book (Amsterdam 1684), the leader’s name is given as Kure Murat.

(3) Emanuel d’Aranda, Relation de la Captivité, 4th edition, Leiden 1671, 368-72.

(4) Oluf EigjlBsen, En Kort Beretning om de Tyrkiske Sôrôveres onde Medfart og Omgang. . . , Copenhagen 1641.

(5) Olafur Egilsson, Litil Saga um herhlaup Tyrkjans arid 1627, Reykjavik 1852. The difference between the Danish and Icelandic forms of the author’s name will be noted.

(6) Bjôrn Jônsson, Tyrkjarânssaga, Reykjavik 1866.

(7) Sigfûs Blôndal, “De Algierske Sôrôveres Tog til Island aar 1627”, Nord og Syd (Copenhagen), 1898-9, 193-208. This excellent article forms the main basis of the account given here.

(8) Jôn Thorkelsson (éd.), Tyrkjarânid â ïslandi 1627, published by the Sôgufjelag, Reykjavik 1906-9. A very brief account of the raid will be found in Knut Gjerset, History of Icelad, London 1923, 319-320.

(9) En Kort Beretning, 19-20.

(10) Some of the other Icelandic sources severely criticise the negligence of the Danish governor Holger Rosenkrands on this occasion.

(11) The Life of the Icelander Jon Olafsson, translated from the Icelandic edition of Dr. Sigfûs Blôndal, by Dame Bertha Philpotts, ii, London 1932, 258-9. To my knowledge this is the only one of the original sources available in translation.

(12) En Kort Beretning, 22.

(13) Blôndal,toc. cit., 207-8.


Europe in 2029?

The above video is an amateur one, I recognise some clips from films I’ve seen and the spelling is not the best, I think the maker is Polish or Czech. But this does get across the danger of our current immigration policies better than anything else I have seen, it makes one feel that this could be the result of what has happened and continues to happen.

In that way it is scary.

I hope this is not the future, but can any of us be sure this can’t happen?

On the Crusades

Audacious Epigone has an excellent essay on the Crusades, and how they are used by modern anti-Europeans as another tool to blacken us, even though they were more complicated than the popular view could ever make out. The most important part of the essay is the point that the Crusades were not, as we are constantly being told, a senseless and unprovoked attack by Christendom against Islam, it was in fact a very long-delayed retaliation against Islamic expansion into Christian territory, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and what is today the Kurdish region was all Christian, and had been so for centuries. Muslims invaded these areas and through force, population displacement, Islamic laws, tax policy, persecution, kidnap, rape and intimidation had managed to convert parts or most of the population to Islam in the centuries of their occupation.

Islam spent a few centuries solidifying as a distinct religion, at first many considered it a Christian heresy, which it could have been, perhaps explaining the welcome their armies received in some places such as Egypt. The Koran spent a few centuries being developed, oddly by Christian monks, and the Arabic script was developed by those same Christian monks! It may have been only by the time of the Crusades, that Islam had become a distinct ‘other’ as opposed to just another heresy!

The Crusades were ostensibly a ‘Holy War’ to liberate Jerusalem from the heathen Saracen, it was a struggle to make the Holy Land, once again Christian and it almost worked!

Although the worst thing to emerge from the Crusades was the merciless plunder of Constantinople, it may be a fact that the Second Rome was loosing its power and going into decline, but I have often wondered what could have been if the Crusades did not besiege and rape Constantinople. Could she have used the Crusader victories to rise once again? Could she have remained a bulwark against the dark forces of the Turks, preventing the suffering of Serbia, Wallachia, Bulgaria and Hungary?

Some things we can never know.