WHO RULES BRITANNIA?

I have believed for some time, that most of the so called "democratic" West, is controlled by Jews and other Zionist forces, in London's City. The financial big wigs who finance conflicts in faraway lands, then announce that we are skint, all our gold reserve was sold on the cheap, and we now require austerity measures. This whole fiasco plays out like an old black and white television drama, yet the majority of Westerners just can't see it. The City still has an empire and it is forcing us (US & UK) to help them extend it.

It all starts with news bulletins announcing that some or another foreign dictator is murdering his own people. They don't like to tell us who this tyrant used to work for, or from whom he aquired his weapons. Not long after this they are discussing his case at the good old United Nations, where it might take a while to get China and Russia to agree with military action. So they send in some UN observers, men who are not even permitted to return fire, should they find themselves under attack. Sooner or later a couple of them are killed by said tyrant, and that is it, US/UK soldiers are on their way.

Iraq is more or less a puppet "democracy", appart from the odd insurgant, who is almost always said to have come from a neighbour state like Iran, a nation that has long been in the cross hairs of the west (ZOG if you prefer). Over in Afghanistan the fighting continues, and the coffins of our young men continue to roll back to be buried with full military honours, which they deserve. Meanwhile back at the mother ship new conflicts are being planned, and the politicians await their briefing.

I understand why they parade the coffins draped in our national flag, to them it is a way to whip up patriotic support for whatever conflict they have involved us in, and it works. Like every right minded individual I too support our troops, no matter what they are sent to do. I don't support the warmongers who send them, and I wonder if they will ever tell us how much this all costs us. We know it is costing lives, but they don't tell us how much money.

World recession my arse, we are skint because we are flushing tax payers money down the toilet, sending our kids to fight and die. Meanwhile even India and Brazil have more money than us. Still ZOG wants to extend their borders, and to hell with the rest of us...

FINANCIALLY UNSTABLE?

If anyone was unsure about just how much debt the previous (Labour) govt has left us in, and just how ineffective the current (Lib/Con) establishment has been when it comes to stabilising our economy, then look at the late night news. The government has just come up with an idea, and it is one that has been attempted in the past.

"Quantitive Easing is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when conventional monetary policy has become ineffective."

Of course this government has not and will not admit that their monetary policy is ineffective, they are sticking to the fact that the previous regime got us into this mess in the first place. The trouble is, that this quantitive easing involves the printing of 50 Billion pounds, with which the central bank will invest in financial assets to inject a pre-determined quantity of money into the economy.

In layman's terms they are going to make our money worth less, because inflation will rise to pay for the new money. They will then invest the money, in other words gamble with it in the hope that it will kickstart the economy. If it works, they will tell us on the news that the economy has risen half a percent, if it fails they will raise taxes and cut public services. So quantitive easing is a risky business, to the general public, because if it fails we pay.

One example of a government printing more money was in Germany in the early to mid 1930's. Inflation skyrocketed culminating in sack loads of deutschmarks being required to buy simple groceries. We all know that the financial mess was part of the reason Germany elected the NSDAP. Unfortunately that is not what how the British public will react, should the worst happen here. There will be a confidence ballot in the house of commons, the coalition will lose, an election will be called, and Labour party will be elected, again.

It is time for White Nationalist influence in British politics. But don't be holding your breath waiting for this. The electorate (sheeple) are just too spineless, it'll be same old same old.

RIP TONY HANCOCK!

RIP Tony Hancock,

I was very sad to hear about the untimely death of print factory owner Tony Hancock of Uckfield.

Tony was a a rarity, a one off. A man who knew just about everyone, yet never got involved in the ridiculous infighting that has plagued our movement for so long. That doesn't mean he didn't have s sense of humour or mischief.

It was Tony who helped me get a venue for my meeting in Hove, not far from where the late John Tyndall had lived, a few years ago. That was the day when I handed over my customary job of chairing the meeting to young Dave Jones, so that I could sit back and listen to the speeches of Eddy Morrison Peter Rushton, and Lady Michelle Renough. One of if bit the best BPP function I had ever attended.

Tony's factory was notorious, and the reds and other antis set fire to it on more than a couple of occasions. This did not deter Tony, who continued to run his print factory and keep the most comprehensive collection of Nationalist and revisionist books and magazines I have ever seen. He also printed for many different groups and parties. I can't see who could possibly replace him, especially in today's climate of infighting and orchestrated division.

Very sad news, Sid.

Politics The New Religion!

Over goodness knows how many thousands of years it has been pretty easy to guess the cause of most conflicts , between either two neighbouring countries or different groups within one. It was almost always religion, indeed it has been ever since the Judaic religions were imported from the middle east. Let us be in no doubt about it, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they are all Semitic religions, as they all started in that region. Then of course there was huge upheaval between Christians / Jews and the Muslims, from the first crusades, to 9/11, to Osama bin Laden's capture and convenient burial at sea. As things stand the never ending images of flag draped coffins arriving at airbases is, to me, a constant reminder, of how many conflicts have been started because of politics in the 20th and 21st century. I can only imagine the horror of repatriating the amount of brave men and women, who were killed in the two pointless world wars that were also fought over politics. I mean how many of our WW1 soldiers would have even heard of the Arch Duke Ferdinand? There was no Internet back then, so how could one investigate and find out the truth, they didn't really know what they were fighting for.

We cannot fight another World War, not when so many nations have nuclear weapons. So because the Zionist plotters want to keep our numbers down, they manufacture situations that lead to us (mostly the US and UK), into conflicts that go on for years, and see the best of our young men and women fighting thousands of miles away, and being killed fighting wars that have little or nothing to do with us.

Of course the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, etc are fighting for their land, and doing so in the name of their religion. For what do we send our young boys and girls overseas to risk their lives? In a nutshell it is oil and politics, usually both as the oil supplies begin to run out, then the US will do whatever it takes to consolidate their huge supply.

The Afghan conflict is riddled with intrigue and hypocrisy, and it didn't start in this century either. It was back in the 70's and 80's. Firstly when Iran waged war on neighbours Iraq. America and its lap dog Britain took sides with Iraq, because the Soviet Union were helping Iran. Then of course the Soviet Union started a war with Afghanistan, which predictably led to the USA & UK helping to both train and arm the Afghans. Subsequently the Iraqis beet the Iranians, and the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan unconditionally. So what has all this twenty - thirty year old news got to do with today's conflicts? Well everything is the answer to that!

With the collapse of communism in the 1990's, the focus shifted, once again, to the Middle East. Iraq was a huge military power in that region, and they have the world an excuse to attack them when they invaded their neighbours Kuwait. After gaining the consent of the United Nations to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, American and British forces continued to bomb targets in Iraq, the excuse being that mobile Scud Missile units had been spotted, and with Israel in range of those missiles we just had to destroy them all. Subsequently Iraq was bombed back into the third world. They were like I said before a military force in that part of the world, but this was because of weapons and training provided to them by the US during the Iran / Iraq war. The final conflict between the US and mainly British allies culminated in the removal of the Iraqi government and the installation of a regime that was more pleasing to the US and of course Israel.

In between the three wars in the Middle East, came what will be forever known as 9/11 (2001). For those who don't already know, this is when three passenger airplanes were hijacked. Two of the planes were driven into the world trade centre (twin towers) in New York, the other was aimed at the pentagon. The twin towers came down almost concertina like, and an estimated 4 thousand lives were lost. We were told that there was not much damage or loss of life at the Pentagon, if there was then such information will never see the light if day. An extremist Islamic group called al qaeda announced responsibility, with it's leader Osama bin Laden sending out the first of many messages telling all of the worlds Muslims to fight a jihad (holy war), against the infidels (non believers) of the western world. A few years later 7/7/2005 suicide bombers detonated themselves on busses and underground trains in London during the morning rush hour, killing 52 and injuring 700. By now US and UK troops had already invaded Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden who also calmed responsibility for the London bombing.

On the 15 December 2003 the president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the man responsible for atrocities and war crimes was found hiding in a hole in the ground under a two roomed mud shack. He was tried for his crimes by a court strung together by the new puppet regime, put in place by the western allies, he was eventually found guilty and was executed on December the 30th 2006. This did not totally end the Iraq war, British and US troops and special agents are still there, training police and building Iraq's new army. Insurgents still attack and blow themselves up, but it is reportedly much more peaceful now.

On the 2nd of May 2011, Osama bin Laden was captured and killed inside a Pakistani military installation by US navy seals. The decision was apparently taken to bury him at sea, in order to prevent his remains from being made into some kind of martyrs shrine. This unfortunately installs a certain amount of doubt, did they really catch and kill him? Why are there no photographs? One thing is certain, our brave men and women are still being sent to Afghanistan, and some are still coming home in coffins.

As I write this, the US have been issuing all kind of threats towards Iran, who are said to be close to processing military grade plutonium. There has been little more news about this, which leads one to believe they now have the bomb. Nations who have nuclear capabilities are seldom even threatened these days. So now we are hearing about civil war and the slaughtering of civilians in Syria, and of course America are trying to get UN backing for military intervention there.

To be honest I'm becoming tiered of writing this now, it is obviously never going to end, unless the entire middle east surrender to the US and become Israel friendly puppet stated with US styled democracy (Zionism).

Thinking Outside The Pen!

Think outside the pen by Sid.

Now I'm sure you have heard the word "sheeple" banded about, it is not in the dictionary and therefore not a real word. Unfortunately they do exist, they meaning the sheeple. They don't just exist, they are literally everywhere. Members of our families no doubt fit the description, the overwhelming majority of white people do. If you blindly accept the official explanation for anything and everything, if you go through life believing everything you hear, read, and see on the television, then you are yourself a sheeple. The existence of such gullible human beings is the product of many decades of social engineering and widespread brainwashing. Being a sheeple does not mean being unintelligent, indeed some of the most intelligent people in the world, even in the history of the world, are and were sheeple. They wrote the text books that are used to educate our children, and in doing so turn them into sheeple. They built a psychological pen, into which all the worlds sheeple are hoarded. They wrote the history books, taught as fact and even studied to achieve qualifications. The history books are not meant to be challenged, some are protected by the letter of the law. A small amount of individuals, and it is unknown how, managed to avoid being brainwashed, formed opinions of their own, and were never rounded up by the enforcers or imprisoned in the psychiatric pen. Unfortunately there are laws in some nations that were made to safeguard the sheeple against such free thinkers. Great men and women have spent years in jail because they dared to challenge certain details of the official history of the world, that was written in stone. While inside the prison system they are subjected to a sustained and systematic overload of intense brainwashing, the idea being that once released they will join everyone else, in the pen. Just to make sure that a released prisoner is a fully fledged pen ready sheeple, strict parole regulations are put in place for months or even years from their release date. It seems that the harder one pushes against the system, the louder one argues with the official story, the more one learns about what really did happen during certain points in world history, the more the conspiracy there will be to make one into a criminal, a lunatic, or even a monster.

So are you yourself a sheeple? Are you happy to stand there day after day eating the rubbish they feed the occupants of the pen? Think about it, you have the potential to be a free thinker, we all do. Unfortunately most of us are so much more comfortable within the confines of the pen. What I'm going to express is my own opinion, I will refrain from using even the slightest hint of suggestion.

I know that it is possible to exist without believing anything just because I am told it is true. I have read the history books, and am certain that certain entries are to ridiculous or fantastic to be true. I write occasionally, just to be sure that I am not alone.

It has been a while since I was among those other free men and women, some of the most brilliant minds. Those who despite the enemies best efforts, are still able to THINK OUTSIDE THE PEN.

Unity Poem :)

The problem with me and the problem with you.

Is all that we say and all that we do.

When was the last time we all stood together?

Defiant of all and in spite of the weather?

We've all been around now for so many years.

We've had our triumphs but mostly shed tears.

Each time things go wrong someone gets the blame.

They become former comrades its all such a shame.

Meanwhile the enemy just points and laughs.

As we carry on making stupendous gaffs.

While we are digging our bloody great hole.

Even more of our Nation is just being stole.

Right from under our noses they take it away.

While we sit at home on computers all day.

Let's go out together and breath the fresh air.

Let the people know that we really do care.

To those we've offended, lets say sorry now.

Because we want unity, lets show them how.

So get off your high horse and start mucking in.

Not being the leader is not such a sin.

But helping to keep us divided is so.

Try helping your comrades, just give it a go.

Forget about leaders, all they do is shout.

Remember the reason why you started out.

It was surely because you desired salvation.

For fourteen words and for Race & Nation.

PW.

HASTINGS 1066, The last time we fought back.

On January the fifth 1066 the King of England, Edward the Confessor died, leaving the crown to Harold apparently on his deathbed. Having no heirs of his own, Edward had left behind a four way rivalry for the crown, a rivalry that would see Englishmen fight an invading force for the last time, even to this very day.

Because there were no actual rules of succession in Anglo-Saxon England, when a king died, the crown would go to anyone who could prove they had a birth right to it, or who could grab it before anyone else.

Upon the death of Edward, (named the Confessor after he had built Westminster Abbey), there were four contenders to the throne. The closest blood relative to Edward was Edgar the Atheling, a Saxon Prince, albeit a sickly fourteen year old boy. Next was Harold Godwinson, a powerful and noble man, who was very popular with the people of England at the time. He was first choice with the Kings Council (Witan), to succeed Edward the Confessor. He was also said to be the choice of the outgoing king on his very deathbed, however only Harold was there to bear witness to this, so there is some room for doubt as to whether he actually did say it. Then of course there was the William, the Duke of Normandy, a distant cousin of Edward said to have been promised the throne. Of course this claim was to be challenged by Harold along with his huge English support. As a child in 1016 Edward had been taken to Normandy, for his own safety, when England was invaded by King Canute. He stayed on the island until he was himself crowned King of England in 1042. Edward invited William of Normandy to his court in 1051, when he was supposed to have promised to make him heir. The fourth contestant was Harald Hardrada, the Viking king of Norway, and direct descendant of the kings of England through King Canute, who reigned from 1016 to 1032. The Vikings had been invading England for a long time, settling mainly in the north from the 860's. Canute had been king of England, Denmark, and Norway. England had been ruled by Norwegian kings, right up to 1042, when Saxon King Edward the Confessor snatched it from them. Hardrada himself wanted to be King of England, literally because he wanted more power. He was however unpopular here, and feared enough to strike dread into the hearts of his enemies.

The first battle to challenge Harold's crown was the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25th 1066. Here Hadrada was helped by King Harold's brother Tostig, who had been exiled from England. Harold and his men broke through the ranks of the Viking invaders, and eventually won what proved to be not only a bloody battle, but a costly battle to boot. Although his victory at Stamford Bridge was impressive, (both Hadrada and Tostig were killed that day), a shattered and depleted army now had to make their way to the south coast, for what is now known as the Battle of Hastings.

On the 29th of September 1066, William the Duke of Normandy landed the first of many shiploads of soldiers at Pevensea Bay. They had sailed across the English Channel and landed unchallenged, because Harold was still busy marching on Stamford Bridge. When the ships were beached, the sailors, the sergeants, and squires unloaded the ships; carried out shields and saddles, landed the war-horses and the palfreys.

Of the army, the archers came ashore first, each with his bow strung, and a quiver full of arrows at his side. All dressed in short garments, ready to attack, to shoot and to wheel about and skirmish. All stood ready and well equipped and ready for a fight. However when they scoured the whole shore, they found not a single solitary armed man!

Meanwhile Harold was still at York celebrating his great victory at Stamford Bridge, over Harald Hardrada and the treacherous Earl Tostig. He then had to resettle the government of the counties which King Harald Hardrada had overrun. It was then that the news reached him that Duke William of Normandy and his invasion force had landed on the Sussex coast. The battle at Stamford Bridge had followed a forced march to North Yorkshire from the south of England. The battle had been fought on the 25th of September; news of the Norman invasion reached Harold on October the 1st. It wasn't as if the Norman invasion hadn't long been expected, but the timing couldn't have been worse, as Harold and his men now marched south.

Harold arrived in London on 6th October 1066. There he halted for six days, during that time giving orders for recruiting forces from the southern and midland counties. He also sent out the order for his fleet to reassemble off the Sussex coast. Such was Harold's popularity that his call to arms was met almost instantaneously. Unfortunately the best of his men had just marched to Stamford Bridge and back, and with a fierce battle in between journeys, one could say that those alive and uninjured were somewhat exhausted. Many of those who volunteered to fight alongside their great king were untrained and inexperienced, but they were ready to give their lives for him, and most of them did.

As soon as Harold had a small army, he began to march south through Surrey then into Sussex. Harold was a popular King and he had proved himself during his brief reign to be a just, wise and brave man. But he was so incensed by the news of William's landing on English soil, that the preparation for this particular battle was all too hasty, as was his plan to actually surprise his enemy. He now faced a foe that was equally brave and as skillful as him, who was prepared for all eventualities, and was waiting for the English army to meet them. When King Harold realized that his hopes of surprising his adversary were in vain, he changed his tactics, halting about seven miles from the Norman lines at Senlac (now called Battle, although in typical ironic fashion evidence has been found that suggests the Battle itself was fought in nearby Crowhurst).

As Harold and his men descended upon the south coast, he sent along some French speaking spies, just to find out how William was prepared for the coming battle. He was said to be horrified to learn that there were more Priests in Williams’s camp than he had fighting men. This report proved to be false, as although only priests would have shorn hair in an English army, most of the Norman fighters had shaved heads. Yes the Normans were prepared; they had even taken the time to build a castle at Pevensea, described here in the Norman chronicles.

"They took counsel together, and looked for a good spot to build a castle on. They had brought with them in the fleet, three pre-built wooden castles from Normandy, all in pieces, ready for fitting together, and they took the materials of one of these out of the ships, all shaped and pierced to receive the pins which they had brought cut and ready in large barrels; and before evening had set in they had finished a good Castle on English ground, and placed their stores there. All then ate and drank, and were glad to be ashore"

So William's strategy involved horses and castles, Harold's did not, also Harold's army was inferior in numbers. In fact it is said that many of Harold's officers suggested he retreat back to London and destroy everything they left behind that might help or feed their Norman pursuers. This advice was unquestionably the wisest, for the Saxon fleet had now reassembled in the English Channel, and had intercepted all William's communications with Normandy. They had cut off William's supply lines, meaning that when their stores became low they would have to march upon and attack London. Had Harold taken this advice he would probably have witnessed his rival's destruction by famine and disease, without having to strike a single blow. Harold however was not prepared to retreat, He would not burn houses and villages, and neither would he take away the substance, of his people. Harold had sworn oaths upon sacred religious relics.

In a bid to persuade Harold not to take part in the battle himself, his brother Gurth said; "My brother, thou canst not deny that either by force or free will thou hast made Duke William an oath on the bodies of saints. Why then risk thyself in the battle with a perjury upon thee? To us, who have sworn nothing, this is a holy and a just war, for we are fighting for our country. Leave us then alone to fight this battle, and he who has the right will win." Typically Harold replied that he couldn't look on while others risked their lives for him.

Men would hold him a coward, and blame him for sending his best friends where he dared not go himself. He resolved, therefore, to fight, and to fight in person; but he was still too good a general to be the assailant in the action; and he deployed his army with great skill along a ridge of rising ground which opened southward, and was covered on the back by an extensive wood. He strengthened his position by a palisade of stakes and osier hurdles, and there he said he would defend himself against whoever should seek him.

The Anglo-Saxons had no cavalry at their disposal and few archers, but they struck a defensive position on a hilltop, and formed a tight shield wall with their battle-axes at the ready. Their main weapons were the Danish battle-axe (a two-handed, long-handled battle axe with a heavy chopping head) and a long double-edged sword.

William joyfully advanced his army from their camp on the hill over Hastings, nearer to the Saxon position. He will have been aware by then how much of an advantage he had in the coming battle, yet he still sent forward his summons, giving Harold the opportunity to surrender.

"A monk, named Hugues Maigrot, came in William's name to call upon the Saxon King to do one of three things: either to resign his royalty in favor of William, to refer it to the arbitration of the Pope to decide which of the two ought to be king, or let it be determined by the issue of a single combat. Harold replied, 'I will not resign my title, I will not refer it to the Pope, nor will I accept the single combat". King Harold was a brave man, but no more likely to surrender his crown upon losing a dual than he would be at the words of an Italian priest.

William was unpaved by King Harold's refusal, but as he calculated his next move, he sent back his priest.

"Go and tell Harold that if he will keep his former compact with me, I will leave to him all the country which is beyond the Humber, and will give his brother Gurth all the lands which Godwin held. If he still persists in refusing my offers, then thou shalt tell him, before all his people that he is a perjurer and a liar; that he and all who shall support him are excommunicated by the mouth of the Pope, and that the bull to that effect is in my hands."

Hugues Maigrot delivered this message in a solemn tone and the Norman chronicle says that at the word "excommunication" the English chiefs looked at one another as if some great danger were impending. One of them spoke as follows:

"We must fight, whatever may be the danger to us; for what we have to consider is not whether we shall accept and receive a new lord, as if our king were dead; the case is quite otherwise. The Norman has given our lands to his captains, to his knights, to all his people, the greater part of whom have already done homage to him for them: they will all look for their gift if their duke become our king; and he himself is bound to deliver up to them our goods, our wives, and our daughters: all is promised to them beforehand. They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, and to take from us the country of our ancestors. And what shall we do? Whither shall we go, when we have no longer a country?"

The English promised, by a unanimous oath, to make neither peace nor truce nor treaty with the invader, but to die or drive away the Normans.

The 13th of October was occupied in these negotiations, and at night the Duke announced to his men that the next day would be the day of battle. That night is said to have been passed by the two armies in very different manners.

The Saxon soldiers spent it in joviality, singing their national songs, and draining huge horns of ale and wine round their campfires.

The Normans, when they had looked to their arms and horses, confessed themselves to the priests, with whom their camp was thronged, and received the sacrament by thousands at a time.

On the 14th of October 1066 the great battle dawned. As previously mentioned, the Saxons had no cavalry and only a few archers. But on top of a hill they made a wall of shields and those behind that wall rained projectiles down on the Normans. William's forces were separated into three columns. The Bretons were on the left, the Normans were in the middle & Flemings were positioned on the right. At the head of each column stood archers, behind whom there were ranks of infantry and cavalry. The battle began with William's archers opening fire followed by an infantry assault.

What were to ensue was a fierce and blood bath, and a battle won by the men of William of Normandy. He would then be crowned king of England on Christmas day that same year.

This was the last time England ever bore arms against an enemy invasion. It was not the last time we were invaded. Day after day, week after week, month after month and so on. The invaders don't have to sneak an entire army over the sea and fortify their positions ready for a battle; they know there will be no battle. England (as well as Scotland, N Ireland, and Wales) is open to all who wish to invade, they can get off a boat or a plane and walk right in, some have even arrived through the channel tunnel. They don't meet any resistance, indeed they are given a free reign to do what they like here. They are even afforded free housing, education, and medical treatment; over the years they have been given their own places of worship, and their own places to bury their dead.

Poor old King Harold lost an eye, and of course his life in the Battle of Hastings, and although the odd prince might try his hand at combat in whichever war we are engaged in, the politicians who continually drag us into these conflicts in faraway lands will never lead the troops. They won’t risk sending their children to risk their lives either. They will inform us of defense cuts in every budget speech though. How can they sleep at night, knowing that they are sending yet another generation to fight and die, and then telling our old folk to wrap up warmer, in their own homes, every winter?