Everyone Must See This!

Some great advice. I've been watching this video for some time now, and I always feel good after watching it, it has a kind of feelgood factor. Well I think it does, anyhow.


“Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)” Music Video. 1999 - More amazing video clips are a click away

A New Year Resolution

There are ‘mostly other directed’ and ‘mostly inner directed’ people, and any amount of research has shown that the latter are quite a small minority of the population at any given time. There is a kind of social magnetism which draws people into ‘going with the flow’, as in crowd behaviour at outdoor and indoor events. On such occasions personal perceptions and judgement are usually submerged in the collective response. Hence the old Spanish saying that shepherds may change, but sheep remain sheep. But however rugged one’s individuality, the fact is we are all social animals and therefore obliged to take some interest in the way our society is governed. Neglect of this responsibility leaves the field open to career politicians with the ingrained conceit that they know best what everybody else should be doing and what matters most in the world. They like to call this megalomania ‘leadership’, when all it usually amounts to is self-serving bossiness and exploitation of the gullible via largely complicit mass media.

So when you hear someone disclaiming any interest in politics, you are probably in the company of sheep. Such complacency is of course fostered by bland assurances that British democracy is designed to protect the public good and ensure our most cherished traditions and aspirations inform government policy. Added to which we have the opportunity to choose between main contenders for political office at approximately five-year intervals, thus giving us the kind of government most people want.

So much for the theory. What really happens is that, over the years, certain factions contrive to subordinate the public to an ‘Establishment’ deeply entrenched behind complex legalistic barricades, and with its own self-serving agenda and priorities.
All this takes place behind a façade of bogus ‘pluralism’, whereby ostensibly opposing parties actually make common cause of multi-racialism and surrender to the European Union. We thus find ourselves governed today by a coalition of traitors.

Always fearful of exposure as such, they use the mass media to keep the public diverted with popular entertainments, consumerism and foreign travel, while the freedom to dissent is stealthily removed via allegedly egalitarian legislation. And meanwhile any complaints of injustice will be referred to fellow lawyers with equally doubtful credentials as libertarians. The machinery of renegade government is then provided by a standing army of career bureaucrats, with jobs for life and generous pensions to protect, the while describing themselves unblushingly as ‘public servants’. All this, together with the enormously coercive power and influence of complicit mass media, has made the governance of Britain hard to distinguish from factory farming.

So what of the politically aware minority, with the nous to recognise and courage to resist this monstrous betrayal? There are now four relatively small groups purporting to be the authentic voice of British patriotism: the British National Party, the British Peoples’ Party, the Nationalist Alliance and the National Front , plus a few splinter groups of disgruntled ‘right wing’ Conservatives. Unable to agree on what defines British nationalism; with implacable opposition from the mass media; with meagre resources and crippling quasi-legal restrictions, there is no possibility at all of such people gaining access to government via the electoral process. In these circumstances, any ‘divide and rule’ tactics by the government become quite superfluous. Though much improved recently, nationalist websites on the Internet have scarcely exhibited the clarity of purpose, discipline and talents needed by serious contenders for public office. They can’t even agree on the defining fundamentals of British nationalism, let alone the means of realising their fulfilment. Worse, some of their correspondents seem keen to exemplify the characterisation of nationalists in the mass media as loutish, ignorant, illiterate and paranoid. With the best will in the world, therefore, the message to all nationalists deserving the name has to be: For God’s sake, get your act together, or kindly leave the stage.

It remains to determine the kind of strategy and tactics needed for national recovery, or at the very least to frustrate the present renegade government’s intentions. Since national elections are a blind alley, all campaigning resources must be concentrated on local government, especially in those areas under most pressure from immigrants.

With enough local government leverage, a national civil disobedience campaign could be mobilised while giving the nationalist message far more publicity and prominence than it could otherwise achieve. Meanwhile, those local politicians and officials seen to be agents of the renegade regime have to be targeted for intense harassment at every opportunity. They must be subjected to the ‘Renegade!’ accusation whenever and wherever they show themselves. Establishment censorship and barring of nationalist assemblies can also be circumvented by ‘gate-crashing’ all high profile renegade events, thus exploiting the media presence to our advantage. And spare us the balloon slogans about freedom, identity, democracy and security; let us instead see bold and unequivocal dedications such as

· Repatriation of all unwanted immigrants
· Self-government for the United Kingdom
· Maximum economic self-sufficiency
· Priority for the family

Ask yourself: how can anyone attack such declarations without exposing themselves as renegades? And how would the vast majority of British people respond on the doorstep to these four commitments? We only need four leaflets, setting out these fundamental policies in plain language, to shatter all the negative propaganda of renegade and alien opponents. And this still leaves us free to expose all the treacherous doctrines and activities of our opponents.

All this too much for you? Try to remember that those disinclined to exert themselves in defence of their heritage and homeland, and who see no further than the feeding-trough, are destined for the abattoirs of history.

F Kimbal Johnson
February 2006

Well, it is coming up to four years since this excellent article by Frank was written, and be honest with yourself, do you feel that as a movement we have made great strides forward since then? That power is within our grasp? Even local power?

I know, I'm a pain in the butt asking these awkward questions, making you reassess, making you think, making you put that video game controller down, or turn that tv off for a moment. But someone has to do it.

The answer of course is that we are still light years from gaining power in this country, and unless we all start pulling together, that dream will remain just that, a dream.

Frank mentions four small groups at that time, well if you are serious about politics, and serious about wanting to win, I'd say there are now only two groups to choose from, the BNP and the National Front.

Personally I feel there won't be any big improvements until we are down to one, with everyone standing shoulder to shoulder and pulling together.

Which one I hear you say. Well that is the $64,000 question, and to be honest it isn't as clear cut as it at first seems. I'll be making some comparisons in the New Year which may help you decide, but until then digest this article and give a little thought to where you want nationalism to go in this coming new year, and what you personally are prepared to do to help.

Bear in mind that no one can afford the luxury of fence sitting any longer if they are in earnest about taking this country back, as time, the steady relinquishing of sovereignty, and demographic considerations rule that out.

So, will it be a new dawn for you and British nationalism, or just the same old same old?

It's resolution time!

Happy New Year!

VNN United Kingdom:

A Tool To Divide And Conquer?

On hearing you have won an award most people are quite chuffed I expect, so was I originally.

To those of you who have never heard of VNN United Kingdom, count yourself lucky. Unfortunately though, and as much as it grieves me to give them the attention that they so crave, I have to point you in that direction for you to understand fully what I’m saying.

So getting back to this prestigious award let me tell you what it was. I won the ‘Stormfront Britain Tool Of The Year Post’. Yes, long winded and crudely put granted, but you have to admit it is to the point. I’m not going to defend my posts here, they are there for anyone to see, I don’t use different names or multiple accounts as I’ve nothing to hide, unlike others I could mention.

I hope you found their intellect as funny or as lacking as I did in giving me that award.

Well, with the niceties and the small talk over, I suppose it is time to get to the point.

I’ve been looking at the way these people operate, oh, and don’t be fooled by the word people there are a handful of them, if that. On reading this stuff, which usually consists of abuse, innuendo and outright lies, I asked myself what it is that they hope to gain? The answer I presume is division and the stifling of the nationalist movement in general.

They make out that they are very pro BNP, in fact so much so it is now common belief that Mr. Griffin is a guiding hand on there if not an actual member. Now given the reputation of this forum I’d have thought the last thing a serving MEP would want is to be associated not only with this forum, but with these actual people. So consequently I feel it would be in Mr. Griffin’s best interest to actually state where he and his party stand on VNN UK as they appear to many to be speaking in his name.

However, there is another stream of thought, and it goes like this. Some say it is a tool to divide and conquer, a place of continuous agitation within the movement. There are more reds hanging around VNN for titbits than web crawlers and spiders, believe me. But I think even the reds have to hold their noses, and treat most of it with the disdain that it thoroughly deserves.

Ask yourself this, if you were out to disrupt and fragment a political movement, to keep it always on the back foot and weakened, how would you go about it? Like VNN perhaps?

How many times have they targeted someone in the name of being BNP stalwarts only to turn that person thoroughly against the BNP, in fact to make them actually openly hostile to it?

Not a bad tactic is it? Destroying a movement by turning it against itself.

I was going to write to the owner of the forum to ask if he ever wondered why the UK forum remains stagnant as regards new members, how when new members do actually join they usually last five minutes. So knowing the owners name Alex Linder, I Googled it to find some contact info, only to find this:

Linder won't respond to this email, because he's a faggot, a coward, fake White Nationalist and a federal informant.

I don’t know the truth of the matter but as you can imagine, on reading this I thought I just might be wasting my time.

In fact I found myself mumbling that old adage: Birds of a feather flock together. Can't think why.

I’m currently in attack mode regarding the BNP, as I believe attack is the best form of defence. But I do keep having this nagging doubt about whether I am being played like a violin by the usual suspects at VNN, and that my dragging my old howitzer out and bombarding the BNP was all part of the plan.

Time will tell I suppose.

On Being A Nationalist

A question of loyalty

By George Jonas

Until recent times, the West has been spoiled by the loyalty of immigrants, even from hostile regions or cultures. During the First World War, with negligible exceptions, immigrants from enemy countries as well as their children remained loyal to Canada and the U.S. throughout the hostilities. During the Second World War, although we treated German, Italian or Japanese immigrants and their descendants shabbily, as a rule they responded with unfailing patriotism. For every Tokyo Rose (the American GI's nickname for Ikuko Toguri, a Japanese-American woman, born in Los Angeles, who broadcast Japanese propaganda during the war) there were thousands of Japanese-American soldiers who gave their lives to fight fascism.

The pattern continued during the Cold War, when former nationals of hostile communist countries often found refuge in North America. These newcomers of various ethnicity and religion, from Eastern Europe to Vietnam, were as supportive of the values and interests of their adopted countries as native-born citizens of Western descent. Few Americans opposed the anti-American antics of Fidel Castro more resolutely than Florida's ex-Cuban community.

This started changing. In the last 30 years, a new type of immigrant emerged: the immigrant of dubious loyalty. Then, even more alarmingly, came a third phenomenon: the disloyal native-born, sometimes of immigrant ancestry, sometimes of Islamic conversion.

The new immigrant seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways, he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. Instead of making efforts to assimilate, the invader demanded changes in the host country's culture. He called on society to accommodate his linguistic or religious requirements. Some were innocuous: In 1985, a Sikh CNR railway worker refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. In 1991, less innocuously, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen.

The host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. Recently, ceremonial daggers were allowed in schools. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.

Disturbing as such talk was, it wasn't unlawful. Dissent was within our democratic tradition. Unfortunately, the new dissenters weren't democrats. Their "dissent" culminated in threats, fatwas, assassinations and finally massacres in American and European cities. How did this come about? Three reasons seem to stand out.

One, we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first. We forgot that when groups of distant cultural and political traditions arrive in significant numbers, they may establish their own communities not merely as colourful expressions of ethnic diversity -- festivals or restaurants -- but as separate cultural-political entities.

Next, we tried to turn this liability into an asset by promoting multiculturalism. We stopped ascribing any value to integration, and began flirting with the notion that host countries aren't legitimate entities with their own cultures, only political frameworks for various co-existing cultures.

Finally, in fundamentalist Islam, we've come up against a culture for which the very concept of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is alien. Puritanical Islam considers that everything belongs to God (or rather, some mullah's idea of God). This concept doesn't envisage one's citizenship commanding a higher loyalty than one's faith.

It's not a matter of where immigrants come from, but where they're going. Refugees from the East are no threat; colonizers are. That's where current immigration trends and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is a vastly different proposition.

By now, multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs or religion in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a clean slate for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

No Way Through

No Way Through highlights mobility restrictions imposed in the West Bank, that are limiting its habitants access to health care, thus violating a fundamental human right.

The 'Real Rain Man' dies

By Nick Allen in Los Angeles

Kim Peek was classed as a "mega-savant" and had memorised 12,000 books, including the entire Bible, but had difficulty with ordinary tasks like getting dressed and combing his hair.

His astonishing abilities included being able to read one page of a book with his left eye and the other with his right. It took him just eight seconds to read and remember a page.

He could also ask a stranger their date of birth, then tell them what day of the week they were born on, and what was on the front of major newspapers.

Mr Peek was classed as a genius in 15 different subjects including history, literature, geography and music yet still scored below average in IQ tests.

Script writer Barry Morrow was inspired to write Rain Man after meeting him in the early 1980s.

Dustin Hoffman went on to win an Oscar for his portrayal of a savant called Raymond Babbitt who, like Mr Peek, reeled off endless sports minutiae.

During his preparation for the role Hoffman met Mr Peek, who was then 37, and helped him to overcome his deeply introverted nature.

Mr Peek's father Fran said: "Dustin Hoffman said to me, you have to promise me one thing about this guy, share him with the world." With his confidence increasing Mr Peek later took to the stage, amazing audiences with his recall and enjoying being known as the "real Rain Man." In 2004 Nasa scientists began studying him using technology designed to assess the effects of space travel on the brain.

Mr Peek, who was a Mormon, died in Salt Lake City, Utah. In recent years he also showed an ability to develop and change, even overcoming his literal nature by learning to tell jokes.

HERE

*********

An amazing guy, and a good film too, if you haven't already seen it.

World War I !!! Betrayal !!!

Extraordinary 19th century photographs, and he painted the colours himself

Talented: Henry Harrison's amazing pictures will go up for sale in October

A stunning collection of photographs taken by a 19th century globetrotter has caused a stir - because he meticulously painted the colours in himself.

The amazing images shed new light on the world as it was more than 100 years ago, with vivid images of snake charmers, ships on the Suez Canal and fighting Sikhs, among others.

Henry Harrison, a Royal Navy Paymaster General, took the black and white pictures on his voyages around the globe and, because he was a talented artist, was able to painstakingly colour them in.

One of Henry Harrison's photographs shows prisoners in China waiting to be executed. He painstakingly hand-painted the colours himself

'An English party ascends the Great pyramid, with a touch of colour

Harrison travelled the globe with his trusty camera and even recorded the grisly early stages of the Boxer Rebellion in China in the late 1890s.

Other locations depicted include the pyramids at Giza, India, Venice, Pompeii, Tonga and the West Indies.

An officer of the Khedive camel corps heads out for a tour of duty

Different way of life: This hand-painted slide shows elephants in India, saying they behaved 'like a well trained collie'

One of the never before seen slides is labelled: "An English party ascending the Great Pyramid." There are pictures of snake charmers, huge cannon being unloaded, ships along the Suez Canal and images of HMS Victory and the Royal Yacht "Victoria and Albert".

He clearly spent time in the Holy Land and there are colour pictures of the Tomb of David, Garden of Gethsemane, the Wailing Wall, Nazareth and Jericho.

Sudanese warriors, Egyptian crocodile catchers, Indian mahouts, fighting Sikhs, Bengali lancers and even a Whirling Dervish - described as a Howling Dervish - are all recorded.

His life spanned the Victorian age and this collection shows the world in colour at the height of the British Empire.

Relative Moiya Harrison, who is now selling them, said: 'Henry Harrison was my late husband's grandfather who was Paymaster General in the Royal Navy.

He was a keen photographer and artist and these slides are what he took during the late 19th century.

'He also coloured in the slides and recently I found his paints and instructions on how to do it - and that is now in the sale.

'He was a very talented artist and the colours on the slides would be accurate.

'He went on seven year tours and covered much of the globe taking pictures, painting pictures and collecting specimens.

'I've kept the family pictures and the specimens he collected, but those for sale include the ones of the Boxer Rebellion which are a bit gruesome.

'None of these has been in the public domain before and the ones of the Boxer Rebellion are dated 1895, which must be from the very early stages.

'He must have been a very interesting man and his life spanned the Victorian age." The slides of the failed Boxer Rebellion are dated 1895, which was in the very early stages of the murderous uprising by Chinese opposed to foreigners and Christians.

Historians both here and in China will be keen to study the images of the uprising.

The Righteous Fists of Harmony - nicknamed Boxers - were fanatical fighters of the Qing Dynasty who murdered missionaries and Chinese Christians.

Harrison captured images of the rebellion and the names he gave to the slides highlight the nature of the uprising.
They include: 'executioners for minor punishments', 'prisoner to be tortured', 'prisoner chained to wall in street', 'prisoner in cage', 'prisoners decapitated.'

They are thought to be punishments meted out to the Boxers who were caught, rather than the victims of the Boxers themselves.

Deborah Doyle, from Duke's auction house in Dorchester, Dorset, said the slides could make up to £1,000.

She said: "These slides are very poignant, and are an important part of our world history.

Full Article Here

Did Hitler Want War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

HERE

Like Uncas: The Last Of The Mohicans

Enoch Powell: Was He Right?

Points and Prophesy from Powell's 1968 Birmingham speech. Was he right?

Enoch Powell on the European Union

Enoch Powell on the European Union (2 of 3)

Enoch Powell on the European Union (3 of 3)

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust revisionism]

An interesting, and no doubt to be controversial interview with Bishop Richard Williamson.