Throughout the centuries this nation has stood many times as a shining beacon of light and inspiration to others against enemies from without. In this day and age much of the threat to our national identity and wellbeing comes from within. Much of this threat comes from traitorous politicians and their lickspittles who have the affront to call themselves British, and tell us that its all for our own good. We observe the creeping Islamification of our country, crime spiralling out of control and the politicisation of our police, town halls, schools, and the workplace. As we witness terror attacks within our borders from those our leaders call "British" (and who are NOT and never will be British - their allegiances lie elsewhere!), as we observe the government talking almost with pride about the number of terror plots they have managed to stop (so far, and as though THEY didnt bring this situation upon the British People!) and as though they have control over the situation, rather than the run of luck they are currently experiencing. As we observe all this it is easy to become despondent and feel that everything is against us as Nationalists.
However, my friends, look around you. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, the times they are a-changing. No longer are Nationalists feeling the need to pussy-foot around when speaking. The groundswell in the street is phenonmenal, with BNP ranks swelling weekly (against nu-labours own figures of a member lost every 20 minutes!), and people finally saying enough is enough! I believe the BNP will make great inroads in the 2007 elections (I myself hope to be a candidate) and will then be able to continue to swing the pendulum away from the liberal left bedwetters currently running our Townhalls and Shires. VOTE BNP!
To finish i include some quotations from some of our proud forefathers - i hope they inspire you as much as they do me.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"What is our policy?... To wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. What is our aim?... Victory... Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory, however long and hard the road may be. For without victory, there is no survival".
(Extract from a speech delivered on May 13th 1940)
Charles Churchill (1731-1764) - English poet
"Be England what she will. With all her faults, she is my country still".
Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson
"England expects that every man will do his duty".
(Message to his men before the Battle of Trafalgar)
William Shakespeare
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead! In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard favoured rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect. On, on you noblest English! Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof; Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till evening fought, And sheathed their swords for lack of argument. And you, good yeomen, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here the mettle of your pasture. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit; and upon this charge Cry "God for Harry! England and Saint George!".
(Henry V - Henry urges his men into the attack at the Siege of Harfleur)
Wednesday, 27 December 2006
Sunday, 24 December 2006
Bleeding Us Dry ..........
Something a bit lighter in vein as my last pre-christmas post. I have always wanted to have a rant at the taxman and this could be his reply to my letter:
H.M Customs and Excise
PO BOX --
-------n
Tax Ref …/……/….. 18-12-2006
Dear Mr ……,
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last correspondence as a "begging letter". It might perhaps be more properly referred to as a "tax return".
Secondly, your frustration at our adding "to the endless stream of faecal whining and panhandling spewed daily through the letterbox onto the doormat" has been noted. However, while i have not seen the other letters to which you refer, i would cautiously suggest that being from "Pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and pissant Gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised.
It may be true that your taxes "go to shore up the liberal-blighted folly that is the Public Services in Britain. However, less than you imagine is spent on "junkets for brown-nosed lickspittles" and "Ilegal immigrants with boxes of matches and Sky TV".
A couple of points arising from your direct queries:
1: The reason we don’t simply write "muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the British postal system.
2: You can rest assured that "sucking the blood of those with nothing left to give" has never been considered as a practise within Customs and Excise.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give up the whole foul rat-race and go and live in a tepee in Scotland" you would still owe us the money.
Please forward it by return.
Yours Sincerely
A. Leech , Customer Relations
Happy Christmas and New Year to you all!
H.M Customs and Excise
PO BOX --
-------n
Tax Ref …/……/….. 18-12-2006
Dear Mr ……,
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last correspondence as a "begging letter". It might perhaps be more properly referred to as a "tax return".
Secondly, your frustration at our adding "to the endless stream of faecal whining and panhandling spewed daily through the letterbox onto the doormat" has been noted. However, while i have not seen the other letters to which you refer, i would cautiously suggest that being from "Pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and pissant Gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised.
It may be true that your taxes "go to shore up the liberal-blighted folly that is the Public Services in Britain. However, less than you imagine is spent on "junkets for brown-nosed lickspittles" and "Ilegal immigrants with boxes of matches and Sky TV".
A couple of points arising from your direct queries:
1: The reason we don’t simply write "muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the British postal system.
2: You can rest assured that "sucking the blood of those with nothing left to give" has never been considered as a practise within Customs and Excise.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give up the whole foul rat-race and go and live in a tepee in Scotland" you would still owe us the money.
Please forward it by return.
Yours Sincerely
A. Leech , Customer Relations
Happy Christmas and New Year to you all!
Standing our Ground - British Military Actions
The concept of men selling their lives as dearly as possible forms an honoured part of of most national histories, Great Britain being no exception. It is also the basis of much military tradition. However the facts are that although all armies (remember Saddams Revolutionary Guard?) talk of fighting to the last man, such events are the exception rather than the rule. The phenomenon of the Last Stand can only be seen in a highly motivated environment, during times of total war or when feelings are very high. The phenonmenon has appeared time and time again throughout history, the earliest recorded example being the stand at the pass of Thermopylae by the Greeks against the Persians in 480BC when King Leoindas of Sparta and his bodyguuard of 300 Spartans refused to surrender and fought to the last man.
At the Battle of Hastings (see earlier post - The White Dragon of the English) when the rest of the English army had fled, King harolds housecarls fought to the bitter end in defence of their king and homeland.
During the Crusades the Knights Templar made it common knowledge to both friend and foe that they neither gave or accepted quarter (mercy/surrender). The Muslims reacted accordingly and after the Battle of Hattin in 1187AD some 200 captured Templar and Hospitaller Knights were executed immediately by beheading ( Sharia Law, anyone?).
At Marston Moor and Naseby during the English Civil War there were Royalist regiments who went down fighting rather than surrender to an enemy and way of life that they loathed and despised.
Remember that in these eras there was no disgrace in an honourable surrender (often offered) and that Last Stands were rare.
This started to change in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the ages of permanent warfare and global expansion, and it is during these times that the Last Stand became a regular feature of war.
Much depends on the motivation of the men invlolved. Where does it come from? Anger? Fear? Espirit de Corps? Tradition? Beliefs? Loyalty? Hope of relief? Or self-sacrifice to help others?
Another factor to consider: Armies do not fight to the last man, nor do large formations. The units that do so are always relatively small compared to the overall conflict or battle. In other words a mans primary loyalties lie with those nearest to him. His "family" and friends - anything outside this group are relative strangers and therefore have little or an impersonal loyalty due.
Some British examples of this:
The Parachute Regiment at Arnhem (17th - 20th September 1944)
The 24th Regiment of Foot (later the South Wales Borderers) at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana (22nd January 1879)
The 2nd Battalion of The Rifle Brigade at Outpost Snipe during the Second Battle of El Alamein (27th October 1942)
The 5th Battalion of the Hampshire Regiment at Sidi Nsir in Tunisia (26th February 1943)
The 2nd Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment at the Admin Box in Burma ((6th - 25th February 1944)
The Gloucestshire regiment, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers and the Royal Ulster Rifles at the Imjin in Korea (22nd - 25th April 1951)
"L" Battery Royal Horse Artillery at Nery (31st August 1914)
(Just out of interest, there were English, Scots and Irishmen fighting for freedom at the Alamo) (23rd February - 6th March 1836)
These battles have passed into British history because of the courage and resolve of those making the stand. With one exception the stand benefited the cause of those who made it. Most obviously, a rigid stand weakened the enemy, disrupted his plans and cost him time - all factors that could be used against him in subsequent engagements, both military and political. Even where a stand was "unsuccessful" the foes small, but frequently expensive tactical victory, was counter-productive as it would engender a burning desire for revenge among the comrades of the men and often in their homeland as well - important from a pyschological warfare aspect.
I will endeavour to cover some of these heroic British military actions over the next few months as most of them are not remembered today - yet in their day they were events that helped shape the British Nation.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"A nation which has forgotten its past can have no future."
At the Battle of Hastings (see earlier post - The White Dragon of the English) when the rest of the English army had fled, King harolds housecarls fought to the bitter end in defence of their king and homeland.
During the Crusades the Knights Templar made it common knowledge to both friend and foe that they neither gave or accepted quarter (mercy/surrender). The Muslims reacted accordingly and after the Battle of Hattin in 1187AD some 200 captured Templar and Hospitaller Knights were executed immediately by beheading ( Sharia Law, anyone?).
At Marston Moor and Naseby during the English Civil War there were Royalist regiments who went down fighting rather than surrender to an enemy and way of life that they loathed and despised.
Remember that in these eras there was no disgrace in an honourable surrender (often offered) and that Last Stands were rare.
This started to change in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the ages of permanent warfare and global expansion, and it is during these times that the Last Stand became a regular feature of war.
Much depends on the motivation of the men invlolved. Where does it come from? Anger? Fear? Espirit de Corps? Tradition? Beliefs? Loyalty? Hope of relief? Or self-sacrifice to help others?
Another factor to consider: Armies do not fight to the last man, nor do large formations. The units that do so are always relatively small compared to the overall conflict or battle. In other words a mans primary loyalties lie with those nearest to him. His "family" and friends - anything outside this group are relative strangers and therefore have little or an impersonal loyalty due.
Some British examples of this:
The Parachute Regiment at Arnhem (17th - 20th September 1944)
The 24th Regiment of Foot (later the South Wales Borderers) at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana (22nd January 1879)
The 2nd Battalion of The Rifle Brigade at Outpost Snipe during the Second Battle of El Alamein (27th October 1942)
The 5th Battalion of the Hampshire Regiment at Sidi Nsir in Tunisia (26th February 1943)
The 2nd Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment at the Admin Box in Burma ((6th - 25th February 1944)
The Gloucestshire regiment, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers and the Royal Ulster Rifles at the Imjin in Korea (22nd - 25th April 1951)
"L" Battery Royal Horse Artillery at Nery (31st August 1914)
(Just out of interest, there were English, Scots and Irishmen fighting for freedom at the Alamo) (23rd February - 6th March 1836)
These battles have passed into British history because of the courage and resolve of those making the stand. With one exception the stand benefited the cause of those who made it. Most obviously, a rigid stand weakened the enemy, disrupted his plans and cost him time - all factors that could be used against him in subsequent engagements, both military and political. Even where a stand was "unsuccessful" the foes small, but frequently expensive tactical victory, was counter-productive as it would engender a burning desire for revenge among the comrades of the men and often in their homeland as well - important from a pyschological warfare aspect.
I will endeavour to cover some of these heroic British military actions over the next few months as most of them are not remembered today - yet in their day they were events that helped shape the British Nation.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"A nation which has forgotten its past can have no future."
Saturday, 23 December 2006
Christmas Stories in 21st Century Britain
Some of the more interesting Christmas related stories:First up, an example of what happens when foreign ethnic groups form enclaves, and then the locals bend over backwards trying to appease them because they're so scared of offending them. In this case the English head teacher of an 80% Muslim school removed the 'virgin' from Mary for Christmas celebrations so as not to offend Muslims. She clearly has no faith or she would never have sanctioned this. But what is even more embarrasing is that she has no knowledge about Islam, and it was the Muslims she was trying to placate. Muslims also believe Jesus was born from an immaculate conception. Why Jesus, a supposedly lesser prophet, was given that honour but Mohammed wasnt is one of the many bizarre contradictions of Islam, but the fact remains that this teacher was clueless. Another school decided to axe its christmas play altogether in favour of a celebration of a range of different faiths, including Judaism and Hinduism.
We were going to have another crass multi-cultural gimmick from channel 4 featuring a Muslim woman in full niqab giving the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message. However it seems the woman in question has stepped down after she saw the reaction to the announcement. But seeing as dozens of women in niqabs (Im assuming they are women....who knows whats under those Bat-outfits?) applied for the role i am sure they can come up with another one in time to save the day.
Aside from all the usual pc nonsense, this years BNP Christmas message was recorded from the Hebridean island of Iona, a key location in the establishment of the Christian tradition in these islands and a very special place at the centre of early Scottish political life; it is the burial grounds of kings and queens from Scotland, Ireland and Norway, a place of homage and reverence. In the 15 minute video, Nick Griffin gives some history of the island and reminds viewers about the erosion of the Christian tradition together with the replacement of the indigenous British population. The BNPtv clip can be downloaded via the BNP-TV link on the left.
Thanks to Victory or Death - link on left
We were going to have another crass multi-cultural gimmick from channel 4 featuring a Muslim woman in full niqab giving the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message. However it seems the woman in question has stepped down after she saw the reaction to the announcement. But seeing as dozens of women in niqabs (Im assuming they are women....who knows whats under those Bat-outfits?) applied for the role i am sure they can come up with another one in time to save the day.
Aside from all the usual pc nonsense, this years BNP Christmas message was recorded from the Hebridean island of Iona, a key location in the establishment of the Christian tradition in these islands and a very special place at the centre of early Scottish political life; it is the burial grounds of kings and queens from Scotland, Ireland and Norway, a place of homage and reverence. In the 15 minute video, Nick Griffin gives some history of the island and reminds viewers about the erosion of the Christian tradition together with the replacement of the indigenous British population. The BNPtv clip can be downloaded via the BNP-TV link on the left.
Thanks to Victory or Death - link on left
A Small Victory
Christians 1 - Lancashire Police 0 - Taxpayer?
A Christian couple questioned by police for describing homosexuality as "morally wrong" have won a £10,000 payout and an apology.
Helen and Joe Roberts were reported to Lancashire Constabulary last December after they asked Wyre Borough Council to display Christian literature alongside leaflets about gay rights.
The council refused, which prompted Mrs Roberts to make a telephone complaint in which she described homosexual practice as "morally wrong".
Two police officers then visited the Roberts' home, in Fleetwood, and questioned them for an hour and 20 minutes about their moral beliefs.
The couple took legal action against Lancashire Constabulary and Wyre Borough Council for infringing their freedom of expression and religious belief, and a High Court hearing was due to take place next month.
The Roberts have now agreed to drop the action after both the police and council apologised and offered £10,000, which will be donated to charity, plus legal costs.
In a written apology, Lancashire Police accepted they should have made proper inquiries before deploying officers.
The apology states: "The decision to send the officers was made after consideration. However, on reflection, we do believe that further inquiries should have been made before they were deployed.
"Had those inquiries been undertaken then we accept it is very likely that our approach would have been different and the officers would not have been deployed.
"We understand the distress you felt at, and following, the visit from the police officers, and we regret that. We fully accept that we now know that you never committed or threatened any crime
I remember reading about the disgusting treatment this couple had received from our over zealous and completely non-impartial political police and am pleased the Roberts have been vindicated. A point though. How much did it cost to pursue the Roberts? How much were the police legal costs and finally - the £10,000 the Roberts chosen charity will recieve - Who pays for it all? Youve guessed - THE TAXPAYER! Thats you and me.Out of pocket again.
A Christian couple questioned by police for describing homosexuality as "morally wrong" have won a £10,000 payout and an apology.
Helen and Joe Roberts were reported to Lancashire Constabulary last December after they asked Wyre Borough Council to display Christian literature alongside leaflets about gay rights.
The council refused, which prompted Mrs Roberts to make a telephone complaint in which she described homosexual practice as "morally wrong".
Two police officers then visited the Roberts' home, in Fleetwood, and questioned them for an hour and 20 minutes about their moral beliefs.
The couple took legal action against Lancashire Constabulary and Wyre Borough Council for infringing their freedom of expression and religious belief, and a High Court hearing was due to take place next month.
The Roberts have now agreed to drop the action after both the police and council apologised and offered £10,000, which will be donated to charity, plus legal costs.
In a written apology, Lancashire Police accepted they should have made proper inquiries before deploying officers.
The apology states: "The decision to send the officers was made after consideration. However, on reflection, we do believe that further inquiries should have been made before they were deployed.
"Had those inquiries been undertaken then we accept it is very likely that our approach would have been different and the officers would not have been deployed.
"We understand the distress you felt at, and following, the visit from the police officers, and we regret that. We fully accept that we now know that you never committed or threatened any crime
I remember reading about the disgusting treatment this couple had received from our over zealous and completely non-impartial political police and am pleased the Roberts have been vindicated. A point though. How much did it cost to pursue the Roberts? How much were the police legal costs and finally - the £10,000 the Roberts chosen charity will recieve - Who pays for it all? Youve guessed - THE TAXPAYER! Thats you and me.Out of pocket again.
Who will support YOU?
Thanks to Sir John Bull (link on left)
Who will support YOU?
It's just so easy for the red fascists. They simply pick off their opponents one by one, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is either too insular or too frightened to object. This 'salami slicing' tactic ensures that their opponents are always weaker and less numerous than they are, and enables the red fascists to win every time.Take the sporting fraternity, for instance. First the red fascists went for the shooters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't own guns. Then the red fascists went for the stag hunters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't hunt stags. Then the red fascists went for the fox hunters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't hunt foxes. Now the red fascists are targeting the fishermen - and who will speak up for them now?Or consider the wider picture. Free speech is being abolished by the red fascists, slice by slice. First they ban race hatred and the incitement of race hatred - and who could possibly object to that? After all, who on earth would actually support the spreading of racial hatred? This was a deliberate ploy to invent a non-existent enemy so that no-one would object to the criminalisation of that enemy. So of course no-one objects to such reasonable legislation which will never affect them - they know it only applies to those 'racist' political extremists (they know they're 'racist' because the red fascists have told them so). But then, from such an innocuous start, the red fascists start to expand the definition of incitement of racial hatred, until any complaint, any objection, or any expression of discontent which could even remotely be inferred to have a racial element is becoming criminalised. The same procedure is then applied to issues of gender, then sexuality, and now religion. Now, suddenly, old soldiers, political leaders, journalists and normal, ordinary men everywhere are being persecuted for speaking their minds and expressing their concerns about modern society. Finally we have the situation where Christian unions are being banned by universities. Who will speak up for them now?Or consider our culture. First the red fascists start to attack shows like the 'black and white minstrels', or children's characters like golliwogs, or advertisements showing beautiful scantily clad bimbos, and each time the public stays silent because each complaint is considered a one-off, too trivial to worry about. And now we have the situation where the wearing of the cross is banned by British Airways. Who will speak up for Christians now?The red fascists are now targeting Christians safe in the knowledge that practising Christians are a minority, and that most people will simply look away. There is also another consideration. The red fascists know that as each group has been targeted, one by one, they have also been demonised in order to prevent them coming together. If only the general public understood that the red fascists will never be satisfied until they have subjugated everyone who does not agree with them. Then maybe people would open their eyes and see that their interests are best served not by cowering under the duvet but by standing shoulder to shoulder and resisting the red fascists.There is only one political party which is prepared to resist the red fascists, rather than roll over and hope to appease them, and that is the British National Party - and that is why the BNP is the prime target of their lies, abuse and attacks. But if you don't support the BNP, when the red fascists come knocking on your door who will support YOU?
Who will support YOU?
It's just so easy for the red fascists. They simply pick off their opponents one by one, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is either too insular or too frightened to object. This 'salami slicing' tactic ensures that their opponents are always weaker and less numerous than they are, and enables the red fascists to win every time.Take the sporting fraternity, for instance. First the red fascists went for the shooters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't own guns. Then the red fascists went for the stag hunters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't hunt stags. Then the red fascists went for the fox hunters, and everyone else looked away, because they didn't hunt foxes. Now the red fascists are targeting the fishermen - and who will speak up for them now?Or consider the wider picture. Free speech is being abolished by the red fascists, slice by slice. First they ban race hatred and the incitement of race hatred - and who could possibly object to that? After all, who on earth would actually support the spreading of racial hatred? This was a deliberate ploy to invent a non-existent enemy so that no-one would object to the criminalisation of that enemy. So of course no-one objects to such reasonable legislation which will never affect them - they know it only applies to those 'racist' political extremists (they know they're 'racist' because the red fascists have told them so). But then, from such an innocuous start, the red fascists start to expand the definition of incitement of racial hatred, until any complaint, any objection, or any expression of discontent which could even remotely be inferred to have a racial element is becoming criminalised. The same procedure is then applied to issues of gender, then sexuality, and now religion. Now, suddenly, old soldiers, political leaders, journalists and normal, ordinary men everywhere are being persecuted for speaking their minds and expressing their concerns about modern society. Finally we have the situation where Christian unions are being banned by universities. Who will speak up for them now?Or consider our culture. First the red fascists start to attack shows like the 'black and white minstrels', or children's characters like golliwogs, or advertisements showing beautiful scantily clad bimbos, and each time the public stays silent because each complaint is considered a one-off, too trivial to worry about. And now we have the situation where the wearing of the cross is banned by British Airways. Who will speak up for Christians now?The red fascists are now targeting Christians safe in the knowledge that practising Christians are a minority, and that most people will simply look away. There is also another consideration. The red fascists know that as each group has been targeted, one by one, they have also been demonised in order to prevent them coming together. If only the general public understood that the red fascists will never be satisfied until they have subjugated everyone who does not agree with them. Then maybe people would open their eyes and see that their interests are best served not by cowering under the duvet but by standing shoulder to shoulder and resisting the red fascists.There is only one political party which is prepared to resist the red fascists, rather than roll over and hope to appease them, and that is the British National Party - and that is why the BNP is the prime target of their lies, abuse and attacks. But if you don't support the BNP, when the red fascists come knocking on your door who will support YOU?
The White Dragon of the English
The White Dragon is the ancient emblem of the English origins of the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain which began in the 5th century AD. The most famous of the early migrants were Hengest and Horsa who arrived with their warriors in three ships. In the following years many warriors and settlers crossed the sea and settled lowland Britain from East to West. They came from the Engle (English), the Seax (Saxons) and the Jutes. From the Jutes came the people of Kent and the people of the Isle of Wight and the mainland opposite Wight. From the Saxons came the East Saxons (Essex) and the South Saxons (Sussex) and the West Saxons (Wessex). From Angeln came the East Engle (East Anglia), Middle Engle (English Midlands), Mercians (Mercia), and all the Northumbrians (North of the Humber), which included those now known as the Lowland Scots.
The Engles (English) were the dominant group and by the 9th century the settlers had merged into ONE English identity. The English gave their name to the land they lived in (Englalond) and the language they spoke (Englisc), which has evolved into modern English. It was those scholars writing in Latin who called the English Angels and Anglo-Saxons.These settlers were closely related peoples – so similar in race and culture that they were able to merge into one English identity. Later they absorbed closely related Danish and other Scandinavian settlers.
The English adopted the White Dragon as their battle flag, while their enemy at the time, the Welsh/Britons, flew the Red Dragon. The White Dragon battlestandard was also flown by Harold II (Harold Godwinson), when he destroyed the Norse army of Harald Hardraade and Tostig (Harolds traitorous brother) at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066 and it was the banner under which he and his warriors fought to the death, three weeks later defending their homeland at the Battle Of Hastings on 14th October.
It was also the battlestandard under which King Alfred the Great defeated the great Viking Army at the Battle of Edington and it was the banner carried by the mighty King Athelstan when he smashed the combined armies of the Scots, Welsh, Norse and Irish at the Battle of Brananburgh in 937.
An account of the Battle of Hastings - 14th October 1066
========================================
Harold positioned himself at Senlac Hill near Hastings and selected a spot that was protected on each flank by marshy land. At his rear was a group of trees. He further strengthened his position with a ditch and some fortifications. The English housecarls provided a shield wall at the front of Harold's army. They carried large battle-axes and were considered to be the toughest fighters in Europe.
The fyrd (local lords and the peasantry) were placed behind the housecarls. The leaders of the fyrd, the thegns, had swords and spears but the rest of the men were generally inexperienced fighters and carried weapons such as iron-studded clubs, scythes, slings, reaping-hooks and hay-forks.
We have no accurate figures of the number of soldiers who took part in the battle although historians have estimated that William had about 5,000 infantry and 3,000 knights while Harold had about 2, 500 housecarls and over 6,000 members of the fyrd. At nine in the morning the Norman archers advanced up the hill and when they were about a 100 yards away from Harold's army fired their first volley of arrows. Using their shields, the housecarls were able to block most of this attack. The Norman infantry then charged up the hill.
The English held firm and the Normans were forced to retreat. Members of the fyrd broke ranks and chased after the Normans. William ordered his cavalry to attacked the English who had left their positions on Senlac Hill. English losses were heavy and very few fighters managed to return to their place at the top of the hill.
At about twelve noon there was a break in the fighting for an hour. This gave both sides a chance to remove the dead and wounded from the battlefield. William, who had originally planned to use his cavalry when the English retreated decided to change his tactics. At about one in the afternoon he ordered his archers forward again.
This time they fired higher in the air. The change of direction of the arrows caught the English by surprise. The arrow attack was immediately followed by a cavalry charge. Casualties on both sides were heavy. Those killed included Harold's two brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine. However, the English line again held and the Normans were eventually forced to retreat. The undisciplined fyrd broke ranks to chase the retreating Normans. William of Normandy ordered his knights to turn and attack the men who had left the line. Once again the English suffered many casualties.
William decided to take another rest. He had lost over a quarter of his cavalry. Many horses had been killed and the ones left alive were exhausted. William decided that his knights should dismount and attack as infantry. This time all the Normans went into battle together. The archers fired their arrows and at the same time the knights and infantry charged up the hill.
It was now four in the afternoon. Heavy English casualties from previous attacks meant that the front line was too short and the Normans were able to outflank them, attacking from the sides as well as the front. The few housecarls that were left were forced to form a small shield-circle round the English battlestandard. The Normans attacked again and this time they broke through the shield wall and Harold and most of his housecarls were killed.
The White Dragon in the 21st Century
===========================
Today , as we see a resurgence of patriotic pride sweeping our land, the White Dragon Flag can be seen flying as a symbol of English identity and pride alongside the later Cross of St.George, as the ethno-English fight again to protect our homeland, albeit this time through the ballot box.
The Engles (English) were the dominant group and by the 9th century the settlers had merged into ONE English identity. The English gave their name to the land they lived in (Englalond) and the language they spoke (Englisc), which has evolved into modern English. It was those scholars writing in Latin who called the English Angels and Anglo-Saxons.These settlers were closely related peoples – so similar in race and culture that they were able to merge into one English identity. Later they absorbed closely related Danish and other Scandinavian settlers.
The English adopted the White Dragon as their battle flag, while their enemy at the time, the Welsh/Britons, flew the Red Dragon. The White Dragon battlestandard was also flown by Harold II (Harold Godwinson), when he destroyed the Norse army of Harald Hardraade and Tostig (Harolds traitorous brother) at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066 and it was the banner under which he and his warriors fought to the death, three weeks later defending their homeland at the Battle Of Hastings on 14th October.
It was also the battlestandard under which King Alfred the Great defeated the great Viking Army at the Battle of Edington and it was the banner carried by the mighty King Athelstan when he smashed the combined armies of the Scots, Welsh, Norse and Irish at the Battle of Brananburgh in 937.
An account of the Battle of Hastings - 14th October 1066
========================================
Harold positioned himself at Senlac Hill near Hastings and selected a spot that was protected on each flank by marshy land. At his rear was a group of trees. He further strengthened his position with a ditch and some fortifications. The English housecarls provided a shield wall at the front of Harold's army. They carried large battle-axes and were considered to be the toughest fighters in Europe.
The fyrd (local lords and the peasantry) were placed behind the housecarls. The leaders of the fyrd, the thegns, had swords and spears but the rest of the men were generally inexperienced fighters and carried weapons such as iron-studded clubs, scythes, slings, reaping-hooks and hay-forks.
We have no accurate figures of the number of soldiers who took part in the battle although historians have estimated that William had about 5,000 infantry and 3,000 knights while Harold had about 2, 500 housecarls and over 6,000 members of the fyrd. At nine in the morning the Norman archers advanced up the hill and when they were about a 100 yards away from Harold's army fired their first volley of arrows. Using their shields, the housecarls were able to block most of this attack. The Norman infantry then charged up the hill.
The English held firm and the Normans were forced to retreat. Members of the fyrd broke ranks and chased after the Normans. William ordered his cavalry to attacked the English who had left their positions on Senlac Hill. English losses were heavy and very few fighters managed to return to their place at the top of the hill.
At about twelve noon there was a break in the fighting for an hour. This gave both sides a chance to remove the dead and wounded from the battlefield. William, who had originally planned to use his cavalry when the English retreated decided to change his tactics. At about one in the afternoon he ordered his archers forward again.
This time they fired higher in the air. The change of direction of the arrows caught the English by surprise. The arrow attack was immediately followed by a cavalry charge. Casualties on both sides were heavy. Those killed included Harold's two brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine. However, the English line again held and the Normans were eventually forced to retreat. The undisciplined fyrd broke ranks to chase the retreating Normans. William of Normandy ordered his knights to turn and attack the men who had left the line. Once again the English suffered many casualties.
William decided to take another rest. He had lost over a quarter of his cavalry. Many horses had been killed and the ones left alive were exhausted. William decided that his knights should dismount and attack as infantry. This time all the Normans went into battle together. The archers fired their arrows and at the same time the knights and infantry charged up the hill.
It was now four in the afternoon. Heavy English casualties from previous attacks meant that the front line was too short and the Normans were able to outflank them, attacking from the sides as well as the front. The few housecarls that were left were forced to form a small shield-circle round the English battlestandard. The Normans attacked again and this time they broke through the shield wall and Harold and most of his housecarls were killed.
The White Dragon in the 21st Century
===========================
Today , as we see a resurgence of patriotic pride sweeping our land, the White Dragon Flag can be seen flying as a symbol of English identity and pride alongside the later Cross of St.George, as the ethno-English fight again to protect our homeland, albeit this time through the ballot box.
Friday, 22 December 2006
Tell Our Government!
Do you think Tony Bliar is doing a good job? Does he make you proud to be British? Well now you can tell him how he has exceeded all your expectations (he has certainly exceeded mine). I wouldnt bother him with Iraq, WMDs (they are still looking apparently), unemployment, mass unchecked immigration, the Islamification of Britain or our Third World NHS (or should that be World Class NHS? Depends if you have BUPA i suppose.), or the availablity of any peerages, as he is a busy man these days. However if you have something you want to get off your chest then CLICK ON THE LINK and have your say.
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page821.asp
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page821.asp
A Mongrel Race?
WE ARE A PEOPLE
It has been said that the British are a mongrel race, that has neither the right nor the racial heritage needed to proclaim itself the land of a distinct people and that we have always had mass immigration throughout our history . Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why is it important to establish the argument for a distinct people in the case of Britain and its history? It is important because without knowledge of our cultural and racial origins we are at risk of being demoralised when we are told that our people have no historical, cultural or racial core. It is true that Europe and Britain were settled long ago by Caucasian European tribes. It is true that as with all ancient formations of nations, the settling of lands, warfare and border disputes were indeed the norm. One cannot imagine that, as those Caucasian tribes struggled to settle and claim Britain , anything less than sporadic warfare and land disputes could have taken place. Such are the birth pains of any new nation in the ancient days when the un-tilled lands first felt the feet of the early British tribes. BUT – these tribes were all of common racial stock! So, why are we continually being told we are a "mongrel" nation made up of every hue and colour and creed under the sun? Because as I said a country and people with no sense of history, culture and self are divided and therefore easy pickings for the greedy politicians and their lickspittle sycophants that we have in power in Britain today
It is said that the early British who settled this land were a disparate bunch of peoples who had nothing in common. The conclusions drawn from this argument will be that as Britain was settled by a variety of peoples (having nothing in common) that the peoples surely have no right to claim a natural racial ownership over the land or even to lay claim to the title," The British People".
If you cannot lay claim to the right of being a people then you cannot defend the collective self from the argument that any and all foreign races should be allowed to cross the borders and subsequently to lay claim to the land even to the point of eradicating the culture of the British race. After all if a people are not recognised as a people, but only as a rag tag group of individuals with no common collective core, no rights to being known as a people then how can they insist that they have a unique culture to preserve and to protect?
So we see the insidious nature of the argument which states that Britain is predominantly populated not by a people (the descendants of our forefathers who settled the land in ancient days), but by a myriad of races, having no common, ancient racial origin, which simply happened to have formed, in that which is now known as Britain.
COMMON BLOODLINES
Actually the forefathers of the British race had everything in common as far as a common racial origin. Now some may argue against these conclusions, however those who would argue would most likely be the same individuals who would argue that the Swedes, the Norwegians and the Danes are very different in racial origin. This argument would be wrong and it would be to ignore the fact that these current nations were simply different parts of the same, huge Viking entity which once roamed the area as a whole tribe, but then split into nations over border warfare and disputes. It will amaze you when you realise just how much of a common racial bloodline the people who formed the British 'race' actually had. Let us look at the racial pattern we have set down for ourselves in history and you will see that we were once great Caucasian tribes.
Britain was formed by the Caucasian race.It only takes a knowledge of history, (an untwisted account of history, one that is not tainted or twisted in word in order to present a false impression with which to demoralise a people), in order to quickly see that the facts of history lay out a very clear road map as to the common racial roots of those who formed Britain.
Early settlers
So, who were the people who settled and created that which is now known as Britain and what did they have in common? What brought them together as a people? First off, the Celts were a tribe from the North of Europe. They were a northern tribe of Caucasians.
Now let us look at the Normans. They were Vikings by race which means that they originated from a Northern European area thus they were a Northern tribe of Caucasians in origin. It is true that they mixed with the French in bloodline, but to argue that the French are not a distinct people just because the Vikings are a part of the French is as absurd as it is to argue that the British race does not exist just because we have had an influxes of settlers over the last two millenia. Let us look at the Danes. They were Vikings by race and thus a Northern European tribe. Let us look at the Picts. They were they were a Viking race (yes that does mean that they were at one time a Northern European tribe in origin) which intermarried with and were absorbed by the Scots who were speakers of the Irish (Gaelic) language.
Let us look at the Saxons, the Jutes, the Angles, all people of northern or Germanic origin. Are you seeing the pattern? The Celtic peoples such as the Gaels, the Britons and the Belgae were much noted for being tall, blonde or red haired and blue eyed or light of eye. They were known for their tattooing. Picts or 'painted men' were known for their ferociousness in battle!
Of course some British forefathers were shorter and some were taller and some were fair while some were pale and some a snowy white. Some had brunette hair and some white blonde or golden hues. We speak in general terms of the physical descriptions of the Viking races. Remember that Denmark and Sweden and Norway are all simply Viking tribes which broke apart as warfare and disputes broke out amongst them. They do not look identical and neither do you or i.
Now, what pattern do we see in the forefathers of the British? We see that the people who settled Britain had a great deal in common when it comes to racial bloodlines
Yes the Romans were in Britain just as they were once in France . It was in 55 and 54 BC, after Rome had conquered Gaul or as we call it now France that Gaius Julius Caesar decided that he needed to deploy troops to Britain to crush the British resistance. Is France not French because Rome was there? Is Britain not British because Rome was there? Of course this argument is ludicrous.Caesar was driven back from Britain when he met with fierce resistance from the free British peoples.
After coming up against the fierce inhabitants of Britain a disgruntled Caesar decided it was best to return his troops to Gaul. Between 54BC and AD 43 trade links developed between Britain and Rome , but then Rome just had to try again and in AD 43 the Roman Emperor Claudius invaded Britain. He was met with a ferocious resistance by the indigenous British and could only conquer lowland England.The British were such a fierce people, such a proud people that even the might and glory of ancient Rome knew itself to be in serious peril when up against the British people. In AD 60 the Roman Suetonius Paulinus was campaigning in North Wales against the Druids, when a major anti Roman uprising was started by Boudicca who openly rebelled when her daughters were raped by roman occupiers.
The major Roman settlements were destroyed in Britain before the uprising was defeated. Rome was now more certain than ever that Britons could be a terribly proud and fierce people when stirred, and if truth be told Rome never could conquer all of Britain. Highland scotland was never conquered by Rome and the areas of Britain which were conquered never would stay conquered. The British never did accept defeat. They simply would not stay down.In AD 409 the Imperial occupation of Britain came to an end.
Let us look at what the British took for themselves culturally from the days of the Roman occupation and we shall see how ancient Greece became an important part of the British people's culture. Whilst Roman empirical forces occupied warlike Britain , or shall we say "attempted" to occupy it? Remember that even the forces of the Roman Empire could never occupy or hold of all Britain . Many of the British incorporated much of the philosophical and educational ideology of Rome into their own lives.
Now let us remember that much of Roman civilisation, culture, literature and art came almost entirely from ancient Greece. For example, no Roman of good family could have called himself truly cultured unless he was able to speak fluently in the Greek language and had a good knowledge of all Greek literature.
The Celts likewise had made a strong impact in the collective Roman mind.
We have already established the racial bloodline from where the British originated and all of this talk about the Romans and the Greeks is in regards to CULTURAL influences on the ancient British, not racial. It is also important to remember that the British ALREADY had their own arts and ideologies in place.They simply added, via ancient Rome, some of the best that ancient Greece had to offer by way of literature and philosophy, to their own vast Northern European, Celtic and Germanic based storehouse of knowledge.
The Church became a major influence in Rome which became predominantly Christian by the year AD 200, and this added to the influence of the church as a major force in Britain.
It was not until Elizabeth the First promoted and created the Church of England that the hold of Rome was lessened in matters of the Church in a permanent way in Britain. So we see that the racial heritage of Britain was culturally influenced by the old ways, by the philosophy and art of ancient Greece, by way of the Roman occupation which ended in Rome leaving Britain, but most of all by the legends and lore and culture of the ancient Northern European Caucasians from where the blood of the ancient British sprang.
So yes – we have had waves of immigration over the centuries but in relatively small numbers, most who were assimilated into our culture and ALL were from the same racial stock
What we have had since 1948 with the arrival of the SS Windrush is an open door policy allowing people of any colour and culture to settle irrespective of numbers or culture or beliefs – nobody knows how many immigrants, illegal or otherwise are currently in our land. However the effects of this can be seen daily on our streets and in our schools and in our communities with race ghettos springing up and spates of anti-white attacks on our people –on our sons, and on our daughters, on our neighbours and on our friends. Taxes have increased to tyrannical levels and our freedom of speech is under direct threat from a government too cowardly to attack the problems but quite happy to betray their own people for the price of a vote.
But we are the descendants of these proud and ancient British people, they never rolled over – why should we?
It has been said that the British are a mongrel race, that has neither the right nor the racial heritage needed to proclaim itself the land of a distinct people and that we have always had mass immigration throughout our history . Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why is it important to establish the argument for a distinct people in the case of Britain and its history? It is important because without knowledge of our cultural and racial origins we are at risk of being demoralised when we are told that our people have no historical, cultural or racial core. It is true that Europe and Britain were settled long ago by Caucasian European tribes. It is true that as with all ancient formations of nations, the settling of lands, warfare and border disputes were indeed the norm. One cannot imagine that, as those Caucasian tribes struggled to settle and claim Britain , anything less than sporadic warfare and land disputes could have taken place. Such are the birth pains of any new nation in the ancient days when the un-tilled lands first felt the feet of the early British tribes. BUT – these tribes were all of common racial stock! So, why are we continually being told we are a "mongrel" nation made up of every hue and colour and creed under the sun? Because as I said a country and people with no sense of history, culture and self are divided and therefore easy pickings for the greedy politicians and their lickspittle sycophants that we have in power in Britain today
It is said that the early British who settled this land were a disparate bunch of peoples who had nothing in common. The conclusions drawn from this argument will be that as Britain was settled by a variety of peoples (having nothing in common) that the peoples surely have no right to claim a natural racial ownership over the land or even to lay claim to the title," The British People".
If you cannot lay claim to the right of being a people then you cannot defend the collective self from the argument that any and all foreign races should be allowed to cross the borders and subsequently to lay claim to the land even to the point of eradicating the culture of the British race. After all if a people are not recognised as a people, but only as a rag tag group of individuals with no common collective core, no rights to being known as a people then how can they insist that they have a unique culture to preserve and to protect?
So we see the insidious nature of the argument which states that Britain is predominantly populated not by a people (the descendants of our forefathers who settled the land in ancient days), but by a myriad of races, having no common, ancient racial origin, which simply happened to have formed, in that which is now known as Britain.
COMMON BLOODLINES
Actually the forefathers of the British race had everything in common as far as a common racial origin. Now some may argue against these conclusions, however those who would argue would most likely be the same individuals who would argue that the Swedes, the Norwegians and the Danes are very different in racial origin. This argument would be wrong and it would be to ignore the fact that these current nations were simply different parts of the same, huge Viking entity which once roamed the area as a whole tribe, but then split into nations over border warfare and disputes. It will amaze you when you realise just how much of a common racial bloodline the people who formed the British 'race' actually had. Let us look at the racial pattern we have set down for ourselves in history and you will see that we were once great Caucasian tribes.
Britain was formed by the Caucasian race.It only takes a knowledge of history, (an untwisted account of history, one that is not tainted or twisted in word in order to present a false impression with which to demoralise a people), in order to quickly see that the facts of history lay out a very clear road map as to the common racial roots of those who formed Britain.
Early settlers
So, who were the people who settled and created that which is now known as Britain and what did they have in common? What brought them together as a people? First off, the Celts were a tribe from the North of Europe. They were a northern tribe of Caucasians.
Now let us look at the Normans. They were Vikings by race which means that they originated from a Northern European area thus they were a Northern tribe of Caucasians in origin. It is true that they mixed with the French in bloodline, but to argue that the French are not a distinct people just because the Vikings are a part of the French is as absurd as it is to argue that the British race does not exist just because we have had an influxes of settlers over the last two millenia. Let us look at the Danes. They were Vikings by race and thus a Northern European tribe. Let us look at the Picts. They were they were a Viking race (yes that does mean that they were at one time a Northern European tribe in origin) which intermarried with and were absorbed by the Scots who were speakers of the Irish (Gaelic) language.
Let us look at the Saxons, the Jutes, the Angles, all people of northern or Germanic origin. Are you seeing the pattern? The Celtic peoples such as the Gaels, the Britons and the Belgae were much noted for being tall, blonde or red haired and blue eyed or light of eye. They were known for their tattooing. Picts or 'painted men' were known for their ferociousness in battle!
Of course some British forefathers were shorter and some were taller and some were fair while some were pale and some a snowy white. Some had brunette hair and some white blonde or golden hues. We speak in general terms of the physical descriptions of the Viking races. Remember that Denmark and Sweden and Norway are all simply Viking tribes which broke apart as warfare and disputes broke out amongst them. They do not look identical and neither do you or i.
Now, what pattern do we see in the forefathers of the British? We see that the people who settled Britain had a great deal in common when it comes to racial bloodlines
Yes the Romans were in Britain just as they were once in France . It was in 55 and 54 BC, after Rome had conquered Gaul or as we call it now France that Gaius Julius Caesar decided that he needed to deploy troops to Britain to crush the British resistance. Is France not French because Rome was there? Is Britain not British because Rome was there? Of course this argument is ludicrous.Caesar was driven back from Britain when he met with fierce resistance from the free British peoples.
After coming up against the fierce inhabitants of Britain a disgruntled Caesar decided it was best to return his troops to Gaul. Between 54BC and AD 43 trade links developed between Britain and Rome , but then Rome just had to try again and in AD 43 the Roman Emperor Claudius invaded Britain. He was met with a ferocious resistance by the indigenous British and could only conquer lowland England.The British were such a fierce people, such a proud people that even the might and glory of ancient Rome knew itself to be in serious peril when up against the British people. In AD 60 the Roman Suetonius Paulinus was campaigning in North Wales against the Druids, when a major anti Roman uprising was started by Boudicca who openly rebelled when her daughters were raped by roman occupiers.
The major Roman settlements were destroyed in Britain before the uprising was defeated. Rome was now more certain than ever that Britons could be a terribly proud and fierce people when stirred, and if truth be told Rome never could conquer all of Britain. Highland scotland was never conquered by Rome and the areas of Britain which were conquered never would stay conquered. The British never did accept defeat. They simply would not stay down.In AD 409 the Imperial occupation of Britain came to an end.
Let us look at what the British took for themselves culturally from the days of the Roman occupation and we shall see how ancient Greece became an important part of the British people's culture. Whilst Roman empirical forces occupied warlike Britain , or shall we say "attempted" to occupy it? Remember that even the forces of the Roman Empire could never occupy or hold of all Britain . Many of the British incorporated much of the philosophical and educational ideology of Rome into their own lives.
Now let us remember that much of Roman civilisation, culture, literature and art came almost entirely from ancient Greece. For example, no Roman of good family could have called himself truly cultured unless he was able to speak fluently in the Greek language and had a good knowledge of all Greek literature.
The Celts likewise had made a strong impact in the collective Roman mind.
We have already established the racial bloodline from where the British originated and all of this talk about the Romans and the Greeks is in regards to CULTURAL influences on the ancient British, not racial. It is also important to remember that the British ALREADY had their own arts and ideologies in place.They simply added, via ancient Rome, some of the best that ancient Greece had to offer by way of literature and philosophy, to their own vast Northern European, Celtic and Germanic based storehouse of knowledge.
The Church became a major influence in Rome which became predominantly Christian by the year AD 200, and this added to the influence of the church as a major force in Britain.
It was not until Elizabeth the First promoted and created the Church of England that the hold of Rome was lessened in matters of the Church in a permanent way in Britain. So we see that the racial heritage of Britain was culturally influenced by the old ways, by the philosophy and art of ancient Greece, by way of the Roman occupation which ended in Rome leaving Britain, but most of all by the legends and lore and culture of the ancient Northern European Caucasians from where the blood of the ancient British sprang.
So yes – we have had waves of immigration over the centuries but in relatively small numbers, most who were assimilated into our culture and ALL were from the same racial stock
What we have had since 1948 with the arrival of the SS Windrush is an open door policy allowing people of any colour and culture to settle irrespective of numbers or culture or beliefs – nobody knows how many immigrants, illegal or otherwise are currently in our land. However the effects of this can be seen daily on our streets and in our schools and in our communities with race ghettos springing up and spates of anti-white attacks on our people –on our sons, and on our daughters, on our neighbours and on our friends. Taxes have increased to tyrannical levels and our freedom of speech is under direct threat from a government too cowardly to attack the problems but quite happy to betray their own people for the price of a vote.
But we are the descendants of these proud and ancient British people, they never rolled over – why should we?
Thursday, 21 December 2006
Christmas is CHRISTmas!
I dont want to labour the point as we see and hear about it all the time but when offered "seasons greetings" or some other PC drivel tell people its CHRISTmas! If you are not a christian then you dont have to play! BUT dont expect us to hide our celebrations under some meaningless greeting designed to be "socially inclusive" (whatever the hell that is!). So speak out and speak up - your voice will make a difference!
Happy Christmas to you all!
Happy Christmas to you all!
Welcome to the BLOG
Welcome all - This is a new blog with which i hope to lay down some of my thoughts on the state of the nation that is Great Britain in the early 21st century.
I am a member of Britains finest and most decent political party - the British National Party.
I am a white middle class taxpayer and as such despised and ignored by the establishment lackeys whose wages i pay.
I am a member of Britains finest and most decent political party - the British National Party.
I am a white middle class taxpayer and as such despised and ignored by the establishment lackeys whose wages i pay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
