The Workers People's Party

I like what these guys have to say, www.twpp.org.uk

The Workers People's Party policies would result in:

A state where the people will have much more genuine say in the running of the country.

Local and working peoples communities becoming socially and politically stronger and the backbone of the nation.

A society where all citizens will and must be treated equally under the law.

A situation where the state would make decisions based on the collective (the common good) as opposed to making decisions based on what is best for the political elite (the selected privileged few).

Developing a society that values our people, our environment and recognises our unique way of life, A United Kingdom that will preserve its citizen’s heritages and cultures.

The nationalisation or re-nationalisation of some of our key British businesses, industries and services.

A nation where an honest day's hard work would be rewarded. And any citizen capable of working should be given the chance to do so and be paid a wage that can support a decent living standard.

A system of flat tax that is fair for all.

A referendum on the return to the Gold Standard.

Stronger laws that will reduce crime and punish offenders. We are entitled to live in our homes and walk our streets without fear.

More funding for the emergency services and equipping our police force with the necessary means to do their job.

An armed forces than can protect our country from foreign and domestic threats.

A stay at home military policy and stop policing the world.

Capital punishment for serious crimes.

An overhaul of our education system, so as to give our youths the best education possible.

Effective border control combined with an immigration policy that will end the madness of mass immigration and illegal aliens. Our country should not be a haven for queue-jumping asylum seekers and bogus refugees, Immigration should not be an excuse for failing to train and employ our people.

Our removal from the European Union and rejoining the European Free Trade Association.


A system of welfare, and benefits that will aid those citizens really in need.

A greener, environmentally aware and active state.

A healthy fully funded NHS. We should have financial security in retirement with easy access to health services.

The removal of political correctness as a factor and repealing laws promoting political correctness, citizens will be judged according to merit not race, status or religion.

An end to the idea that is multiculturalism as it is a proven failed experiment.

A sound public service ethics.

A new British Bill of Rights (constitution) and the repeal of the Human Rights Act.

A government which puts its workers and people first.

The Workers People's Party is a political movement founded on basic solid morals and ethics with the view of reviving the once strong and unshakable principles that made our country great. With our comprehensive and ambitious programme of vigour and of action we hope to achieve all our aims we have set ourselves.

So, while we seek to persuade people of our new revolutionary ideas, our name and ideals at a glance might seem to some socialist inspired however we are not a socialist party, we are civic nationalists, British patriots if you will. Marxism has been marketed quite successfully as the only "true" ideology for the workers; we believe common sense and civic nationalism is the way forward. We have all seen and felt the appalling effects of socialist inspired policy over the years in our great nation, so now we are here to show that there is an alternative.

I Will No Longer Feel Guilty

I was inspired to write this post after reading these guilt messages

 “I remember how horrified I was at the depth of poverty I witnessed while visiting Zambia a few years ago. The guilt I felt upon returning to my warm home and fully stocked kitchen was debilitating for several days.”

 To this day, several years later, I still struggle with this guilt. It ebbs and flows. Sometimes it is too difficult to bear and other times it doesn’t cross my mind. During Compassion’s Christmas banquet, it was particularly heavy.

I was reminiscing and remembered a conversation I had with one of my Zambian friends as we passed a Subway restaurant. He told me how excited he was for Christmas. It was the one meal when his family ate chicken. My heart sank as I remembered this and looked over the beautiful meal that was in front of me.

A few minutes later, Wess was asked to say grace. What followed in the few words he said touched the depth of my heart:

“We know that what we have before us is so much more than those we work for and serve. We are thankful for this blessing and promise to use the strength gained from this meal to work harder for those living in poverty and witnessing injustice.”

I know that many of you may have struggled with this same issue. Maybe you visited your sponsored child or maybe you did mission work in college. You came home with the same guilt I did.

Take heart — do not let this guilt paralyze you. Instead, use it to propel you into action. What can you do to influence those around you and spread awareness?

And another post i read online was:

I’m reminded of my trip to Brazil after reading this. I was helping my youngest sponsored son assemble 2 puzzles at one of the centers. Both puzzles had one or two missing pieces. While my son didn’t seem to mind that pieces were missing, I found myself getting a little frustrated but I hid the feelings.

I work in an affluent school system as an Occupational Therapy Assistant. At times I may help a child learn how to put a puzzle together. When I let a teacher know that a puzzle has missing pieces I’m told to throw the puzzle out because missing pieces will only frustrate the child.

When life or the world in general throws you a curve ball, you can either try to stop it, which is hard, or you can attempt to catch it and chuck it back in one movement, maintaining its energy and adding some of your own clout to it. People who like to talk about revolutions, terrorism, and giant wars are missing the point, and usually way of target. We don't need to destroy our society. We just need to redirect it, which will be easier said than done but nonetheless we should really give it a try.

For example, one simple alteration we would be well advised to make is how we should handle guilt differently. Guilt, or feelings of inadequacy and being "bad" for not having done something that someone else desires, is one of the predominant emotions expressed in our society and is a required and fundamental emotion for someone to be considered "human" by the all powerful and limiting terms of liberal democracy. There's plenty of guilt for every circumstance.

If you don't donate money to help starving African or Asian children (who will in turn after a good meal of Nestlés powdered, high protein supplements breed more starving African or Asian children, thanks to food from the West) you are guilty. If you don't have pity for the right people, and don't say the obligatory things - "Of course, the Holocaust(tm) was terrible" and "At that time, of course, a black man couldn't get a job in America" - you are considered guilty. Even simple things, like leaving the toilet seat up if you're in a house with a woman, can be grounds for massive guilt.

You did not do what others usually liberal types considered "right," so you're supposed to blame yourself and feel bad about yourself and prostrate yourself before others so they can blame you too. This has the double advantage of both disciplining you, and bringing you closer to your controllers by making you want their pity, which says to you, "You're okay and approved by society again, so you're suffering from guilt can cease."

Guilt can even take forms without anyone clearly in charge. For example if you are let's say, age 17 and home on a Saturday night working, it is suggested that you're a loser by the social attitudes you see on television and in the movies. Guilt is mechanical, and occurs even if you're not "guilty," for example, if one chooses to work on Saturday night instead of following the herd, being out drunk and generally being a sheep in the game of supposed freedom.

Our lives are wracked by guilt, from our first consciousness to death. We feel guilty for being prosperous, if we are, and for being destitute, if we're not prosperous. We feel guilty for having more than any other person in this "equal" society, and we feel guilty if we offend someone by actually having an opinion. If we're not popular with the people who declare it important so that they can be popular, we're supposed to feel guilt.

But guilt as we know is  a scam, have you ever notice that the "popular people, correction kids" at any regular school are the ones who aren't good at really anything else? Similarly, the Jewish people who invented the concept of religious guilt in a "Western" sense were failures at everything they did except trade and with it, swindling. They built no lasting monuments, of note; their religion was borrowed chiefly from other of near eastern peoples. Their culture was the hand-me-downs of trading tribes in the region. But what they did have was guilt, and plenty of it.

I find taking a stand against guilt is like catching that curveball and sending it right back to the source. Instead of wasting my energy either convincing myself or others that I'm not "guilty," I put that energy into something with a positive, tangible end result, whether as simple as helping to build my grandparents a back porch or as complex as helping run a political party or organisation. Our creativity is brighter than this dulled world, and there's no need for me to have the self-pity and guilt that afflicts the rest of this society. Maybe this will work for you too -- you're the only one who can control whether or not you feel guilty, for things you have no reason to be guilty about.

Today's Society Sucks

God has nothing to do with it we are the masters of our destiny

Why are we surprised when there are murders, drug abuse, cheating, violence, shadiness and all manner of atrocities in our modern western societies, when our society only brings it on itself? We're uber-materialistic, we all live in our own dream-dealistic-worlds, devoid and ignoring of all reality for the best part, most of our society has never read a "real" book from cover to cover. Not one of us really cares about the other person or people who have had it bad, we really don't contribute to anything worthwhile and when we do it's just a tax claim, and yet we expect society to magically be this great and pretty place, and we then have the audacity to bitch when things don't go our way.

Things are going to spiral and continue downward until people start shooting each other openly on the streets, and everything really all turns to shit.

Wait, it already has, it's called L.A, and believe it or not even little backwaters like Stockholm, Sweden are now receiving their fair share of this kind of crap, from newly arrived Russia and Middle Eastern mafia immigrant gangs, I just call them hoodlums.

People and society especially western cultured society, in short is evil. That's right, Evil. It's all about profit, money, status and not much else if you got big tits, or will sleep with 100 girls on a reality show and are willing to show them on TV you will be a star, true values like 1.Courage 2.Truth 3.Honour 4.Fidelity 5.Discipline 6.Hospitality 7.Self Reliance 8.Industriousness 9.Perseverance. are no longer respected.

Who gives a F#&k, the Dumb Bitch!

The rich and powerful are pretty much all just a bunch of criminal, who often hid behind politics and usually are just corrupt to the core. The poor just blame the rich and powerful, but seldom really try to change their social condition and their excuse is normally ignorance we are all born with the same measure of luck it's up to the individual to decide how to use it.

It's all just bullshit, so why do people always act so surprise?


I mean exactly how wonderful do you think a society of shopaholic, big brother watching, money-grubbing, fake, nasty, shallow, social-climbing, pretending, narcissistic, and pretty much vile people will be?

I mean come on do you really think this world is going in a good or the right direction?

Look if we only produce evil for lack of a better word, the fruit of our seeds will only produce more evil, so if we are constantly exposed to this sick fruit we will be affected by its sweet nectar and eventually we shall all just stop caring, which has already happened actually. So much so until it dominos downward and all hell really breaks loose.

So my brothers and sisters, that's what's going on do you, see it.

we only have ourselves to blame, we as individuals need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming others for our woes and work towards a common goal, a goal of the common good.

We can't expect the effect to be great when the cause sucks.

Let’s talk about a superior society. More explicitly, let´s discuss the economical and social aspects of a superior society in brief. In the midst of many other things in such a society, we would want an unwavering and thriving economy would you not say, one where there is complete employment and great living wages, back to basics morality and away with political correctness and multiculturalism.


We would want our "own" people to come first, based on meritocracy and the concepts of Anglo-Saxon moral worth, and not be subject to foreign or misguided, Abrahamic directives.

We would also want environmentally, affordable safe, well constructed housing, whether in the buyers market or renting of a place to call your own.

Would you not want a health care system accessible for you and your family, regardless of your financial situation, or gender? We would want liberal provisions for those of our people with disabilities, a first-rate plan of action for those of our women on maternity leave as well as those in retirement.

We would also want free entrée to higher education for those with the qualifications or qualified applicants and top quality employment training schemes for any of our people, within our nations.

We would want a healthy, strong farming sector and national infrastructure, producing natural organic produce, for the best part. One which supports smaller family farms over large national and international agribusiness conglomerates.

We would also want only the best public security nationally and locally where you didn't have to reside in gated, high walled areas to feel secure like South Africa today, and where you could amble down the roads and lanes of any town or city at any time, be that day or night-without the apprehension of being abused, robbed, assaulted, or worse.

Would you not want also tough measures to protect our environment for our future? These are a few of the requirements I would want - for every person in my version of a potential superior society.

Today, we have none of these things, loads of big plans for projects supposed to start in like the year 2050, for me and you that just won’t do. All I hear is a lot of talk but little action. Why? Do these expectations of a superior society sound unreasonable, or utopian?

I say to you that they are not – and I, a Traditional realist intend to do my bit to prove this can be a reality and it is possible this superior society I dream of. All it takes is the actions of you and me working for something greater than self interest, and hopefully we will be leaving a strong, effective society that our descendents will be proud of.

The Tower of Babel

A popular mythological argument against multiethnic society proposes that Yahweh (the Jewish god, not the Christian-Mohammedan god) intended us to be separate races and accordingly divided us. Almost always omitted is what prompted Yahweh to make such a decision. The Tower of Babel is actually a myth about a united prehistoric humanity building a tower to transcend earth and reach heaven. Yahweh, fearing that we would succeed and consequently overthrow his rule, panicked and gave every race a different language, with the result that communication between builders broke down and construction failed. Thus the Tower of Babel, far from a ridiculous experiment doomed from the beginning, was a folk project so likely to succeed and so likely to thus threaten Jewish hegemony that it had to be sabotaged by deliberated division of its folk through giving them separate racial identities.

The myth warns against cultural relativism (the idea that different cultures need not converse with the aim of reaching agreement), which we have never denied is promoted by Jews. But what many anti-multiculturalists misunderstand is why Jews promote multiculturalism. It is hardly because Zionism fears ethnically homogenous societies (which, after all, took turns expelling Jews more than 100 times only to soon let them back in), but because it fears all non-Jews resisting it in synchronicity. This is why Jews promote ethnic separatism at the same time as they promote multiculturalism. Multiculturalism (many directions in one society) and separatism (many directions in many societies) are both derived from cultural relativism and hence, while dressed up as a mutually hostile dichotomy, work in a pincer movement to fragment what could otherwise become a multiethnic folk (one direction) easily able to defeat Zionism, and furthermore, if we believe the myth, complete our construction project and leave this material existence behind once and for all.

Be not misled by reverse-bluffing Zionist agents who erroneously use the term ‘Tower of Babel’ as an analogy for a failed multiethnic society. The true social architecture of united humanity is neither melting pot nor salad bowl, but a distillation tower, at whose summit only the noblest will arrive.

Anglo-Saxon Women

Typical female Anglo-Saxon dress in the pagan period

The Old English word mann means ‘adult human’ of either gender. And thus mean and women had equal standing both legally and within the community. Women could own property and were often educated. They could practice professions and run societies. There are even instances of women being buried with weapons, which indicated that they fought. That is certainly known of Queen Athelflæda, dohtor of Ælfred the Great. It was not equality as we strive for. But, it was equality in a society that valued all 'adult humans', whether they were Weapon Men or Wife Men.

Women could not be pressed into marriage. It is only the Norman invasion and the Catholic Church’s attitude towards women reinforced by the feudal system that suppressed women for 1000 years, led by appalling devices of female suppression such as the ducking stool. Not until 1978 did women regain the same rights as the enjoyed in free Anglo-Saxon society. Not until the Golden Age of Elizabeth I did England once again see a woman of the strength of Athelflæda. She led the Mercian army against the last vestiges of Vikings in what was the Dane Law in England. The deduction from that is that English women must have been cultured into certain military arts. Some must have worn armour and fought. That indicates an acceptance by Anglo-Saxon men of womanhood as equals and of Anglo-Saxon woman of the discipline and commitment to battle alongside men.  To be foolish enough to think that an enemy could wonder into an early English burgh when there were no men around would have been a mistake. Both the early English women and children were lethal.

What did an Anglo-Saxon woman do all day? This would naturally depend greatly on her social class as well as regional and period differences. The word wif 'wife, woman' might be connected with weaving, which implies that cloth-making was associated with women. In wills, the male line was called wæpnedhealf 'weapon half' or sperehealf 'spear half' and the female line was wifhealf 'wife half' or spinelhealf 'spindle half'. It would then seem that men were traditionally warriors or hunters, while women were cloth-makers and embroiderers.

This view is also supported by other literature from that time and by grave findings. Furthermore, the feminine occupational suffix stere was used to form words such as seamster, spinster and webster, all connected with cloth-making. From wills we know that a wealthy Anglo-Saxon household contained a variety of soft furnishings: bed-clothes, table-linen, seat-covers, wall-hangings and so on, so women would have had plenty of work in this field.

In the Anglo-Saxon household, food was prepared by male slaves alone or men and women equally, but preparing and serving drink was women's job. This is confirmed by surnames such as Brewster, Malster and Tapster, and by heroic poetry, where the lady is always the one to serve the drinks. Female cup-bearers (birele) are also mentioned in Æthelbert's laws:

14. If a man lie with an eorl's birele, let him make bot with twelve shillings.
16. If a man lie with a ceorl's birele, let him make bot with six shillings.

In monastic life, gardening was done by laywomen. Another possible occupation for a woman was that of an entertainer - there are a few examples of this in literature.

Daily life was far from easy for people in Anglo-Saxon England. Women especially had a high mortality rate because of the dangers of pregnancies, miscarriages and childbirth - lack of iron has also been suggested to as one reason. Examination of skeletal remains has revealed that common ailments included earache, toothache, headache, shingles, wounds, burns, and pain in the joints. Another source of information on this subject are manuscripts offering medical advice; some remedies deal specifically with female matters, often mixing common sense and superstition. Here is an example of quite practical advice for women (as cited in Fell):

A pregnant woman ought to be fully warned against eating anything too salt or too sweet, and against drinking strong alcohol: also against pork and fatty foods; also against drinking to the point of drunkenness, also against travelling; also against too much riding on horseback lest the child is born before the right time.

Marriage and Sex

As far as marriage is concerned, Anglo-Saxons generally had clear and sensible legislation for the rights of women. The husband was to pay morgengifu ('morning gift') in money or land to the woman herself, and she would have personal control over it to give away, sell or bequeath as she chose. Places with names such as Morgay Farm and Morgay Wood were probably given as morgengifu, so the amount of land given seems to have been fairly large at least in these cases. Marriage agreements were made between the two families but the girl did have a say in who she married, and her kin seem to have mainly acted as legal and financial advisers. The following is an example of an Anglo-Saxon marriage contract (as cited in Fell):

Here is declared in this document the agreement which Godwine made with Brithric when he wooed his daughter. In the first place he gave her a pound's weight of gold, to induce her to accept his suit, and he granted her the estate at Street with all that belongs to it, and 150 acres at Burmarsh and in addition 30 oxen and 20 cows and 10 horses and 10 slaves.

Within marriage, finances belonged to both the husband and the wife. This we know from wills and charters. Æthelbert's law number 79 from the seventh century says about divorce:

If she wish to go away with her children, let her have half the property.

This gave women independence and security. On the other hand, Æthelbert 77 shows that deception was not acceptable:

... if there be guile, let him bring her home again, and let his property be restored to him.

For the purpose of protecting married women, there was also a law that a wife shall not be held guilty for any criminal activity of her husband. Widows were protected in the issue of inheritance: Æthelræd's law stated that they should not be forced into second marriages, and Cnut had a law against forcing widows to become nuns.

Attitudes to women were more dominated by class than sex in Anglo-Saxon England. The basic class distinctions for women were slave vs. free, and virgin vs. married vs. widow. For example, in Ælfred's law the penalty for raping a free woman was ten shillings, while the penalty for raping a slave was only five shillings. In addition, a free woman would get the money for herself, but the fine for a slave would be paid to her master. However, heroic literature has several examples of slaves rising from their original class. Beowulf, for instance, mentions a queen called Wealhtheow, which means foreign (or Welsh) slave.

Because people were allowed to choose their spouses, marital relationships could be very rewarding. The word 'friendship' was often used for the relationship between husband and wife. Unsurprisingly, there is little evidence of organised prostitution in Anglo-Saxon England. Ecclesiastical writings from that time speak a great deal about incest, prohibiting it strictly; however, this does not mean that incest as we understand it was common, for their definition of incest covered marriages between wide degrees of kin.

We do not have much information about Anglo-Saxon sex life, but a few riddles depicting this aspect have survived. This is Riddle 54 from The Exeter Book of Riddles (as cited in Hunt-Anschütz):

A young man made for the corner where he knew she was standing; this strapping youth had come some way - with his own hands he whipped up her dress, and under her girdle (as she stood there) thrust something stiff, worked his will; they both shook. This fellow quickened: one moment he was forceful, a first rate servant, so strenuous that the next he was knocked up, quite blown by his exertion. Beneath the girdle a thing began to grow that upstanding men often think of, tenderly, and acquire.

Family and Kinship

In Anglo-Saxon England, sons and daughters were considered equally important. The wergild (the fine paid for killing somebody) of men and women was identical, but for pregnant women it was 1.5 times the usual. This passage from "The Fates of Men" (as cited in Fell) illustrates attitudes to children:

It happens very often through the power of God that a man and woman bring a child into the world and clothe it in colours. They encourage it and amuse it until the time comes, as the years pass, that the young limbs full of life are grown. Father and mother thus support it and nourish it, make gifts to it and clothe it. God only knows what the years will bring to the growing child.

From wills we know that foster-relationships were common: well-born children were brought up away from home. Perhaps it was thought that this was good for their education. As far as inheritance issues are concerned, no preference was given to men as heirs but women were in a slightly more vulnerable position, at least if they did not have somebody to defend their rights. Brothers and sisters could inherit from each other, and brothers took care of their unmarried or widowed sisters after the father.

Friendships could also be formed between men and women more remotely related, as proven by numerous wills, charters, chronicles and letters. Anglo-Saxon literature frequently describes how people's loyalty could shift from their own kin to their spouse's kin, which could cause problems if the relationships between the families grew tense. Heroic poetry often depicts the woman as a peace-weaver between the families.

Manor and Court

Well-born women were very powerful and did not need anyone else's consent to own and give estates and rings. The Mercian Register 914 describes the independence of the Lady of the Mercians as follows (as cited in Fell): "In this year by the grace of God, Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, went with all the Mercians to Tamworth, and built the fortress there in early summer, and before the beginning of August, the one at Stafford." Over a quarter of the wills we have from Anglo-Saxon England were made by women, and there are several more by husbands and wives jointly. Some place names, too, such as Eadburg (Aberford), suggest that women could own and even manage their estates.

Many women from wealthy families were well-educated and literate; wills even mention small private libraries owned by women, although books were rare those days. Letters show women as advocates and protectors, and people would praise women's wisdom rather than their exterior features. As to appearance, grave findings and manuscript illustrations suggest that a high-born woman would have had her head covered with a veil and worn rings, necklaces, pendants and brooches.

After 1066

The Norman Conquest brought with it the customs and laws of the Normans. This had a negative impact on the position of women. Now they had a very limited share in the feudal land-owning and politics; their role was 'to marry and to serve'. The wife was given in marriage as a token of land-transfer, and the husband owned everything. Children were married off young; women were sold to whoever offered the most to the lord. Only peasants could marry out of love. The only women with relative freedom to do what they wanted were rich widows who paid the fee for self-determination to their lord.

The canon law and Gregorian Reform led to anti-feminism; women were to be silent in public and submit to the will of their husbands or fathers, as Eve was inferior to Adam. The law said that spiritual love should exist between spouses, so consent was needed from both parties and only them. However, the age of valid consent was 12 for girls, so they were probably easily intimidated into marrying.

The law also put priests' wives in an insecure position, as clerical celibacy was now demanded. Furthermore, the canon law stated that no married woman could make a valid will without her husband's consent. Still, marriage was a means to social promotion for a woman; it was her job to be the mistress of her own household. Ladies were not totally helpless, and would play their part even in war if necessary.

Secular literature, too, was Frenchified; the heroic epic was replaced by the chivalric romance, which depicted woman as a remote, unattainable idea of beauty and virtue. In real life, of course, this was impossible; husband was the wife's head, for better or for worse. "The Owl and the Nightingale" (as cited in Fell) shows us a glimpse of a neglected housewife:

When her husband comes home she dares not utter a word. He rants and raves like a madman, and that is all he brings home. She can do nothing, say nothing that pleases him and often, when she has done nothing wrong, she gets his fist in her teeth.

Urban life from the twelfth century onwards opened up more opportunities for women as shopkeepers, cloth-makers, entertainers, etc. - only when married, of course. The only alternative to marriage were cloisters, but nunneries had fewer patrons than monasteries and thus had to struggle with a constant lack of resources. Women's access to schooling was very limited. Illness and early death were common; women's ailments were not considered worth studying and treating so they had to retreat to private traditions of healing.

Conclusion

For many women, Anglo-Saxon England was a golden age of power and wealth, culture and education; women's role in marriage had (for the free-born) immense potential. Unfortunately, the Norman Conquest and the Gregorian Reform caused literature to lose touch with reality and women to lose their status in reality.

Women's Clothing

Women's costume in this period is a lot easier to reconstruct than men's, since it seems to have involved much jewellery which helps determine the whole costume's appearance. There are consistent features of all early Anglo-Saxon women's costume, although there are also several regional variations. These are usually referred to as the Anglian, Saxon and Kentish or Jutish styles (and certainly their distribution coincides with Bede's description of which people settled where.

The basic item of clothing was a 'peplos' dress. This is usually a tubular garment (although it can be just a rectangle of cloth) clasped at the shoulders by a pair of brooches, leaving the arms uncovered. This type of garment has been worn by women in countless cultures from the earliest times and was clearly a feature of Germanic costume for many centuries. Excavated examples vary in size from 54" (1.37m) to 66" (1.68m) in height and 94" (2.40m) to 106" (2.68m) in circumference. It is interesting to note that these measurements correspond closely to the measurements of the two cloaks mentioned above, so the cloaks could have been worn as open sided peplos dresses (it also gives us a clue as to the size and type of loom in use). The height of these dresses would mean that the top of the dress would have to be folded over into a cape and/or the dress would have to be heavily bloused over a girdle, both features seen in continental pictorial representations. There are numerous ways of wearing a peplos dress, involving anything from one to three brooches, although two is definitely the most common number. It seems the early Germanic settlers were fond of a symmetrical look and most of the pairs of brooches are identical, or at least very similar. The girdle is usually worn around the waist or hips, although at least one source shows the women wearing the gown pulled in just below the breasts, then hanging loose, an arrangement which may have been comfortable during early pregnancy. The folds of the gown usually conceal the belt, but a few sources show a second visible belt. This garment was usually worn ankle length, although, if worn over an underdress, it may sometimes have been worn calf length. These garments were often edged with tablet weave, at least at the top edge, and probably sometimes also at the bottom. The style of brooches worn seem to form a regional pattern: quoit brooches were worn only south of the Thames and, like the equal armed brooch, were known only in the earliest period. Radiate headed brooches, bird-shaped brooches and inlaid brooches were largely characteristic of Kent. Cruciform brooches were particularly popular in Anglian areas; annular brooches were especially favoured by the Northumbrian Angles. Saucer brooches were most popular in Saxon areas, as were disc brooches. Long brooches, in all their forms seem to have been fairly universal. (For more details on these terms see the jewellery section. [to be added soon]) Some poorer female graves have lacked the pairs of shoulder brooches, and it is probable that in these cases the two edges were sewn together, rather than pinned with brooches. Peplos gowns were usually made of wool, although a few were made of linen. We do not know what name was given to this garment, although slop and wealca are the most likely.

In warm weather the peplos gown would have been worn on its own, but in cold weather, or on special occasions, an underdress would have been worn. The style of this seems to have varied, in some cases perhaps only being a bodice, and in others being a full length 'gown'. The sleeves also seem to have varied in length from almost non-existent to full length. The main types seem to be: a bodice with long, tight sleeves with an aperture at the front closed by a brooch, with the peplos fastened to this by another central brooch. (There may have also been a full length version of this garment, or it may have been worn with a 'petticoat'. [see below]) This style is most often represented in Anglian areas, where wrist clasps were used to fasten the sleeves (this is a custom which seems to be almost exclusive to Anglian women), although a version without the wrist clasps may well have been worn in other areas. Another type would be a full length sleeveless, or short sleeved, underdress (perhaps pleated like later Scandinavian examples), similar to the man's tunic and reaching to somewhere between the knee and ankle. This garment seems to be more typical of the Saxon woman, although it may have been worn under, and in addition to, the bodice mentioned above. Finally, there is some continental pictorial evidence to suggest that a long 'petticoat' may have been worn under the peplos. This would probably have taken the form of a cylinder of cloth worn around the waist or hips, drawn tight with a drawstring around the top edge. These undergarments would usually have been of linen or fine wool. There are several Old English words for undergarments but it is unclear which of them refer to women's garments. The words are cemes, ham, hemeđe, scyrte, serc and smoc.

The costume of Anglo-Saxon women in Pagan times was certainly girdled or belted, as demonstrated by the survival of the leather or textile from which the belt was made, by the numerous preservations in situ of fasteners such as buckles, and the regular discovery of objects at the hip or waist which had obviously been attached to belts. Women's belts seem to have been fastened by many different ways including buckles, tie-belts, knotting, or perhaps, toggles. Many items hung from the belt including knives, shears, keys, toilet implements, cosmetic tools (tweezers, brushes, etc.), amulets, spindles, pouches, etc..

As well as the underdress and peplos, many women also wore cloaks, capes or shawls. Cloaks would have been of the square or rectangular type worn by the men, although some representations show the cloak fastened centrally on women, rather than just at the shoulder. Shorter capes and shawls could also have been worn. Names for outer garments are many, and it is not usually clear which were worn by men and which by women, but they include loţa, rift, mentel, hacele, ofer-slop, pad and sciccing. The crusene and heden were of fur or skin, the rocc and sciccels could also be of fur. One cloak type garment exclusive to women seems to be the hwitel which was made of white (undyed) wool and was probably fringed.

There is no evidence that in Pagan times women habitually covered their heads like the later Anglo-Saxon women, but a number of types of headgear are known. A cloak or shawl could easily be drawn up over the head, to form a hood, and rectangular scarves, sometimes fringed are known from archaeology. Caps or hairnets of a technique known as sprang are known from pictorial and archaeological sources, often covering plaits or braids of hair. Pictorial and archaeological evidence also suggest the use of veils, often of linen, draped loosely over unbound hair. A veil is prone to slip, or be blown by the wind, so if a veil was to be worn it would either have a band over it to secure it, or a fixed base, such as a braid of hair and/or a cap, could be used to pin it to. A few wealthy Kentish women were buried with gold brocaded fillets (perhaps known by the Latin word vitta, or the Old English words nostle, snod and ţwćle), a fashion imported from the Frankish Kingdom. Possibly women in humbler circumstances wore fillets made entirely of textile which has since rotted away. The linguistic evidence suggests a wider range of headgear than archaeology and sculpture. The word hćt (hat) was in use as were cuffie (loose fitting hood or scarf) and scyfel (some kind of cap or hat). The binde, a fillet, seems to have been worn by married women.

We do not know how Anglo-Saxon women kept their legs warm, they may have simply added extra layers of gowns and petticoats, or they could have used some other method. They probably would have made use of short linen trousers (brec) and puttee type leg bindings (hose-bendas, winingas).

Women's costume in Kent, where settlement seems to have been mainly by Jutes and Frisians from the Frankish areas, seems to have been different from the Germanic norm, at least amongst the upper classes. Apart from the gold brocaded fillets mentioned above (which may have been restricted to those of royal birth), it appears they may also have worn an open fronted robe, fastened with brooches at the chest and/or waist over, or in place of, the peplos gown. It seems that a pair of brooches may also have sometimes been used to pin the two sides of the robe open, revealing the garment beneath. From the lowest brooch a silver caged crystal ball, often with a perforated silver spoon, would hang, in addition to the items normally found hanging from the belt. The exact purpose of this ball and spoon is uncertain, and it is usually ascribed ritual significance. A buckled belt and abundance of jewellery are also common features of Kentish costume. The veil was also a common part of Kentish costume, and it is very likely to have covered the ears since ear-rings have been found, but worn on necklaces rather than in the ears. This style of head-dress may have come from the continent, where Christianity was influencing dress and lifestyle. This costume is more typical of Frankish than English styles, and has its ultimate source in Byzantium. The strong Frankish influence is probably caused by a combination of the Kentish Jutes Frankish origin and their closeness to the Frankish Empire. However, differences between the Kentish and Frankish costumes show that Kentish costume was not a slavish following of Frankish fashion, just that a number of Frankish, ultimately Byzantine, trends influenced Kentish women in the upper strata of society.

(A good reference for women in early English society: Kathleen Herbert ‘Peace Weavers and Shield Maidens’). ISBN-10: 1898281114 - ISBN-13: 978-1898281115. Is it through this strength of English females and those who associate with their values that is changinging world politics since World War II? Is it this ancient strength that is producing equality? One would like to think so. Princess Athelflæda, Elizabeth I, and Emmeline (Emily) Pankhurst the English suffragette , (15 July 1858 – 14 June 1928), are females of Global standing.

The Saxon War Song

Saxon War Band moves along an old Roman road. Artist: Mark Taylor

by Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) Whet the bright steel,
Sons of the White Dragon!
Kindle the torch,
Daughter of Hengist!
The steel glimmers not for the carving of the banquet,
It is hard, broad and sharp pointed;
The torch goeth not to the bridal chamber,
It steams and glitters blue with sulpher.
Whet the steel, the raven croaks!
Light the torch, Zernebrock is yelling!
Whet the steel, sons of the Dragon!
Kindle the torch, daughter of Hengist!

The black clouds are low over the thane’s castle:
The eagle screams-he rides on their bosom.
Scream not, grey rider of the sable cloud,
Thy banquet is prepared!
The maidens of Valhalla look forth,
The race of Hengist will send them guests.
Shake your black tresses, maidens of Valhalla!
And strike your loud timbrels for joy!
Many a haughty step bends to your halls,
Many a helmed head.

Dark sits the evening upon the thane’s castle,
The black clouds gather round;
Soon shall they be red as the blood of the valiant!
The destroyer of forests shall shake his red crest against them;
He, the bright consumer of palaces,
Broad waves he his blazing banner,
Red, wide, and dusky,
Over the strife of the valiant;
His joy is the clashing swords and broken bucklers;
He loves to lick the hissing blood as it bursts warm from the wound!

All must perish!
The sword cleaveth the helmet;
The strong armour is pierced by the lance:
Fire devoureth the dwelling of princes,
Engines break down the fences of battle.
All must perish!
The race of Hengist is gone-
The name of Horsa is no more!
Shrink not then from your doom, sons of the sword!
Let your blades drink blood like wine;
Feast ye in the banquet of slaughter,
By the light of blazing halls!
Strong be your swords while your blood is warm.
And spare neither for pity nor fear,
For vengeance hath but an hour;
Strong hate itself shall expire!
I also must perish.

Watch This Video:The Central Role of Mosques in Islamic Political Doctrine

As Dymphna mentioned last week, British barrister  has launched a new program called "Mosque Busters” at his Law and Freedom Foundation website.

 

Mission Statement

 

His specialty is planning law, and he is willing to work pro bono to help ordinary citizens demonstrate to their local councils that the building of a mosque or an Islamic center is actually in violation of British law. Mosques play a central role in the propagation of Islamic political doctrine, which incites behavior that is illegal under British criminal law and human rights law. Local councils are therefore legally exposed if they approve the building of a mosque, and Mosque Busters will help citizens make councilors aware of their vulnerability under the law.

Citizens need to check in with their local councils regularly to find out if a request for planning permission for a mosque has been filed. This is public information, and councils are legally required to supply it upon request. If you learn that such an application has been filed in your locality, contact the Law and Freedom Foundation .

Below the jump is Mr. Boby’s latest video with advice and information on how to stop the building of mosques in local communities in the UK. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for posting this video.

There is a donation button his website so that those who can afford it may contribute to his worthy efforts.

http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/