Some Thoughts on Being a Noordlander

Whites have always been a minority in the world—a successful minority— but a minority all the same. This led some of us to believe we would always be successful, always be in charge of our destiny, even of world history. Events in the last few years—especially Muslim terrorism and mass migration to Europe and America—have shown this may not be true for much longer.

Pressures from within and without are buffeting European countries, and European populations, as never before. Some of this is philosophical, some political, some demographic, some physical. Whites are mostly unaware of these facts because, in most places, they remain local majorities in charge of political, military and judicial institutions.

However, inevitably, this will change as white populations decline due to their unsustainable birthrate and other ethnic groups increase due to their fecundity. It is a slow, multi-generational, process but it is inexorable. The evidence is all around us if we look.

For most of you, reading these words today, this demographic change will have little effect. You and I will both die of old age. But for our children, and their children, things will be very different. Demography drives history, politics, culture and law. It will be a new world in which whites will be a persecuted minority, as they are in South Africa.

The name “Noordlander” is Afrikaans for north country resident and is our way of recognizing and emulating the South African “Suidlanders” civil defence organization. More information on the Suidlanders emergency plan is available on YouTube.

The Noordlander Association aims to learn from the Suidlander example and adapt it to a Canadian context. This will take time, effort, and dedication over many years. This website is a start. You reading these words is a start. Access is by invitation to interested individuals. An email link is at the top of the page under Contact.

The Lies About World War II

A number of factors are responsible for disunity among White populations. One of the most significant is the hole the Second World War blasted in white identity in Europe and America, not just the war, but the propaganda that went with it. We’ve all been marinated in anti-German mems since childhood. The following article by Paul Craig Roberts will go some distance in restoring the balance. Editor.

War Leader or Warlord?

In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.

As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/09/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/

Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.

I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.

In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.

World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.

Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.

Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.

This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.

To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.

World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.

Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.

In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.

In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.

Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.

The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.

From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.

Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.

Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.

Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”

A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3

Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.

Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.

Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.

Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.

It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.

Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.

The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.

Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.

No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.

The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.

It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.

In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”

So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative obtained May 21, 2019)

Beauty and the Beast

Zaida Catalán

You may have heard about the two young Scandinavian women killed, and beheaded, by Islamic militants recently in Morocco. They’re not alone. Here’s one you may not have heard of, Zaida Catalán, a Swedish politician who was shot and beheaded in the Congo in March of 2017.

So what, you may ask, was she doing in that Hell-hole of corruption, poverty and rebellion? Was she checking on the Kamuina Nsapu militia, who were responsible for beheading 40 police officers? No. She and an American were checking with the rebels on Government atrocities as part of a U.N. mission. The New York Times describes her death.

“Exciting development,” she scribbled in her diary in late January. “I can maybe nail this bastard. Damn!”

“Weeks later, Ms. Catalán, a United Nations investigator with little training and no safety equipment or even health insurance, headed into a remote area teeming with militia fighters to find the culprits behind a massacre in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

“A grainy cellphone video shows what happened next: A cluster of men with rifles and red bandannas lead Ms. Catalán, a 36-year-old Swedish-Chilean, into a grove with her American colleague, Michael J. Sharp, 34. The two investigators are barefoot.

“Mr. Sharp starts arguing. He and Ms. Catalán are forced onto the ground. Suddenly, shots are fired, hitting Mr. Sharp first. Ms. Catalán screams and tries to run for cover. She is shot twice.

“Their bodies were discovered weeks later in a shallow grave, laid out carefully, side by side, in opposite directions. Ms. Catalán had been decapitated. Her head had been taken.”

On her Instragram page, this photo is titled “Living the crazy life in the DRC

Here’s what you can take away from this tragedy. First; Zaida Catalán wanted to save the planet as a Green party politician. Second; she believed in the concept of brave rebels fighting government oppression. And as a U.N. “observer” she believed in internationalism and globalism. And now, that beautiful head at the top of the page is no longer attached to the beautiful body you see on a motorcycle.

The reason is not the Congo, which has always been as it is now, a violent, backward, dangerous place. The reason is that young Swedish women, and white women generally in the West, have been sold a false narrative in their progressive schools. They actually believe race is a social construct, all people are basically kind, that governments generally oppress and that the peasants generally are oppressed.

They believe this bizarre fantasy and they die, and will continue to die, until governments in the West do a wholesale clean-up of Western educational institutions. Until that happy day, more beautiful heads will be severed in an ocean of blood. So don’t blame the Congo. The Congo is what it is.

Blame yourself for supporting school systems that kill our women.

Is it Time to End Female Suffrage?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel May 20, 2017. / poisoning PHOTO / MICHELE TANTUSSI (Photo credit should read MICHELE TANTUSSI/poisoning/Getty Images)

Well, there she is, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the person who allowed more than a million economic migrants to enter Europe as  refugees. You would think the resulting troubles would have been enough to get her turfed from office in last year’s national elections. But no, while support for her Christian Democratic Union by men dropped from 39 to 30%, support from women only slipped from 44 to 37%.

And that’s the problem. Women traditionally have less in-group loyalty than men. They see little difference in helping native-born Germans and immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Central Africa. This is true at the top, and, as we see in the election result, at the bottom. Most German women approve of mass African immigration, despite rising rape and assault rates across the country.

Germany is just the worst example, there are others: France, Holland, Sweden and Norway among them. Canada’s Justin Trudeau, who claims to be a male feminist, also welcomed the world’s refugees last year and Canada found itself facing thousands of migrants from Central America. And as in Germany, most Canadian women approve of this policy.

The point I’m making is not that women approve of specific issues relating to immigration; it’s that they approve of all issue relating to helping the world’s poor. It doesn’t matter if its babies in Africa, children in Syria, immigrants on boats, migrants at the Quebec border; they’re all the same to the average woman voter. Help them all.

All this is completely understandable. Women have a maternal instinct and for many, now on a career path treadmill, no way to express it. So they vote for parties who support the U.N., for foreign aid, for charities that help migrants, and for mass immigration to the West.

They are, like children in a candy shop, always ready to spend Mommy’s money.

Unfortunately, mass immigration is not just expensive, it’s suicidal. Once the genetic makeup of a country is changed, there’s no changing it back. Women don’t understand this because eugenics is no longer taught in our universities. As far as women are concerned, genetics stop as soon as the discussion involves humans. Cows? Trees? Plants? Sure. Human beings, no way.

Women are like children watching their house burn down and still expecting to have supper on the table. They just don’t get it.

And for that reason, the question is being raised in the Noordlander Association, and other alt-right organizations; is it time to end Female suffrage? If women can’t divine the difference between self-interest and global interest, maybe they shouldn’t be voting on important issues, or on any issues.

Even women on the Right understand this question. Others in their sex are poisoning the water. Since they can’t be stopped individually, they will have to be stopped en mass.

By ending their participation at the ballot box.

 

 

What Happens to White Women when White Men Lose?

An 1806 engraving of Jean-Jacques Dessalines. It depicts the general, sword raised in one arm, while the other holds the severed head of a white woman.

European armies don’t often lose against non-European opponents, but when they do, our enemies take their revenge in the most extreme ways possible. In today’s age of multiculturalism and moral relativism, all this has been thoroughly swept under the carpet, expunged from the record and explained away.

Nevertheless, the bones still fill the graves, the record still exists, the horrors still resonate down the long halls and empty mansions of our history.

I’ll take six examples that speak for themselves, most a snapshot of a larger picture, often just a day out of thousands. What’s interesting is that over three continents and 300 years, there is a disturbing theme that runs through these stories. It is, horribly, that when the men are down, the women are prey.

1) the Lachine massacre. This little-known event was part of what were called the “Beaver Wars” between French and English settlers in New France and New England. The Lachine massacre occurred occurred when 1,500 Mohawk warriors attacked the small, 375-inhabitant, settlement of Lachine on Montreal Island on the morning of August 5, 1689.They burned the settlement and killed or captured many of the inhabitants. Some accounts say the number of French dead was 250. According to a 1992 article, the Iroquois killed 24 French and took more than 70 prisoners. François Vachon de Belmont, the fifth superior of the Sulpicians of Montreal, wrote in his History of Canada:

After this total victory, the unhappy band of prisoners was subjected to all the rage which the cruellest vengeance could inspire in these savages. They were taken to the far side of Lake St. Louis by the victorious army, which shouted ninety times while crossing to indicate the number of prisoners or scalps they had taken, saying, we have been tricked, Ononthio, we will trick you as well. Once they had landed, they lit fires, planted stakes in the ground, burned five Frenchmen, roasted six children, and grilled some others on the coals and ate them.

Surviving prisoners of the massacre reported that 48 of their colleagues were tortured, burned and eaten shortly after being taken captive.

2) the Haitian massacre of whites in 1804 (illustrated). When French soldiers were expelled from Haiti, local troops under the command of a black leader, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, decided to kill all the remaining whites. Here’s Wikipedia:

The massacre, which took place throughout Haiti, occurred from early January 1804 until 22 April 1804 and resulted in the death of 3,000 to 5,000 men, women, and children.

Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families. Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed. A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children.

Throughout the nineteenth century, these events were well known in the United States, where they were called “the horrors of St. Domingo” and they polarized Southern public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery

This last is an interesting comment which most people today have never heard; the fact that the South, which had a large black population, was anxious not to repeat what happened in Haiti. They had seen race-based savagery across the water and they feared it.

3) the Indian mutiny of 1857. For a complex series of reasons, Indian troops mutinied against their British officers and went on a rampage killing Europeans and looting their homes. There were many violent incidents, so I will pick out one, the Cawnpore massacre. A rebel leader, Nana Sahib, gathered 200 women and children together and tried to use them as a bargaining chip to get British forces to retreat. When they did not, he decided to murder the hostages.

The situation for the prisoners was desperate: they had nothing to eat and were already dying of starvation; the soldiers had raped many girls and forced all the male children to take off their clothes, because they wanted to sell them, so now all the boys were stark naked. Finally, on 15 July, an order was given to murder the women and children imprisoned at Bibighar. The details of the incident, such as who ordered the massacre, are not clear.According to some sources, Azimullah Khan ordered the murder of women and children at Bibighar.

The rebel sepoys executed the four surviving male hostages from Fatehghar, one of them a 14-year-old boy. But they refused to obey the order to kill women and the other children.Some of the sepoys agreed to remove the women and children from the courtyard, when Tatya Tope threatened to execute them for dereliction of duty. Nana Sahib left the building because he didn’t want to be a witness to the unfolding massacre.

The British women and children were ordered to come out of the assembly rooms, but they refused to do so and clung to each other. They barricaded themselves, tying the door handles with clothing. At first, around twenty rebel soldiers opened fire on the outside of the Bibighar, firing through holes in the boarded windows. The soldiers of the squad that was supposed to fire the next round were disturbed by the scene, and discharged their shots into the air. Soon after, upon hearing the screams and groans inside, the rebel soldiers declared that they were not going to kill any more women & children.

An angry Begum Hussaini Khanum termed the sepoys’ act as cowardice, and asked her aide Sarvur Khan to finish the job of killing the captives. Khan hired butchers, who brutally murdered the captives with cleavers: most women had their breasts cut off; most children were slashed in the belly and their bowels spilled out; many little boys had also their genitals cut. The butchers left, when it seemed that all the captives had been killed. However, a few women and children had managed to survive by hiding under the other dead bodies. It was agreed that the bodies of the victims would be thrown down a dry well by some sweepers. The next morning the rebels arrived to dispose of the bodies and they found that three women who were still alive, and also three stark naked children aged between four and seven years old .The surviving women were cast into the well by the sweepers who had also been told to strip the bodies of the women and girls (the male children had been stripped before the massacre). The sweepers then threw the three little boys into the well one at a time, the youngest first. Some victims, among them small children, were therefore buried alive in a heap of butchered corpses.

4) the Taiyuan massacre during the Boxer rebellion of 1900. The narrative is now only 117 years away, and yet the story is the same.

Protestant and Catholic missionaries and their Chinese parishioners were massacred throughout northern China, some by Boxers and others by government troops and authorities. After the declaration of war on Western powers in June 1900, Yuxian, who had been named governor in March, implemented a brutal anti-foreign and anti-Christian policy. On 9 July, reports circulated that he had executed forty-four foreigners (including women and children) from missionary families whom he had invited to the provincial capital Taiyuan under the promise to protect them.

Wikipedia suggests that maybe Yuxian didn’t order their execution and they were instead the victims of “mob violence.” The inference is that being beaten to death by a mob is somehow preferable to being shot on orders of the governor. It doesn’t matter; either officially or unofficially Chinese rage was aimed at white men, women and children.

5) the killing of nurses and white women in Hong Kong and Singapore in 1941. Let’s take one massacre from the first example, the St. Stephen’s College massacre:

Several hours before the British surrendered on Christmas day at the end of the Battle of Hong Kong, Japanese soldiers entered St. Stephen’s College, which was being used as a hospital on the front line at the time.The Japanese were met by two doctors, Black and Witney, who were marched away, and were later found dead and mutilated. They then burst into the wards and bayoneted a number of British, Canadian and Indian wounded soldiers who were incapable of hiding.The survivors and their nurses were imprisoned in two rooms upstairs. Later, a second wave of Japanese troops arrived after the fighting had moved further south, away from the school. They removed two Canadians from one of the rooms, and mutilated and killed them outside. Many of the nurses next door were then dragged off to be gang raped, and later found mutilated.The following morning, after the surrender, the Japanese ordered that all these bodies should be cremated just outside the hall. Other soldiers who had died in the defence of Stanley were burned with those killed in the massacre, making well over 100 altogether.

The operative words in that account are “many,” “nurses,” “gang raped” and “mutilated.” And remember, these were Japanese, as civilized and urbane a people as it’s possible to find on the planet. Anyway, let’s move on to the Battle of Singapore. Again, it was the same at the British Military Hospital:

On 14 February, the Japanese renewed their assault on the western part of the Southern Area’s defences, around the same area that the 1st Malayan Brigade had fought desperately to hold the previous day.At about 13:00, the Japanese broke through and they advanced towards the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. A British lieutenant—acting as an envoy with a white flag—approached the Japanese forces but was killed with a bayonet. After the Japanese troops entered the hospital they killed up to 50 soldiers, including some undergoing surgery. Doctors and nurses were also killed. The next day about 200 male staff members and patients who had been assembled and bound the previous day, many of them walking wounded, were ordered to walk about 400 m (440 yd) to an industrial area. Those who fell on the way were bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly-ventilated rooms where they were held overnight without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment.The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.

This brief description doesn’t mention that the nurses were first raped, but other accounts do.

6) hostage taking during the Simba rebellion in the Congo of 1964. The Simba rebellion was part of the Congo civil war following de-colonialization by Belgium. It’s a complex story, but once again whites were the victims:

The rebels started taking hostages from the local white population in areas under their control. Several hundred hostages were taken to Stanleyville and placed under guard in the Victoria Hotel. A group of Belgian and Italian nuns were taken hostage by rebel leader Gaston Soumaliot.The nuns were forced into hard labor and numerous atrocities were reported by news agencies all over the world.

Fortunately, most of these people were later rescued by white troops.

Looking across the centuries at the carnage visited on white women when white armies are defeated, we see a strange similarity. Raping, mutiliation and death is what they get if we fail them in battle. It doesn’t matter if they were friendly with the natives, if they were nurses, if they had babes in arms. All were cut down, cut up, raped, bayonetted, mutilated, burned and buried, sometimes alive.

Does anyone seriously think this pattern of violence has stopped, will stop, now, never to reappear in the future? The answer to that is obvious, but the solution less so. The issue is something we in the Noordlander Association consider a pressing concern.