Brexit dominates General Election – racial nationalist parties stand aside

Nominations closed today for the UK General Election on December 12th, and H&D readers will not be surprised to learn that there are very few candidates from racial nationalist parties.

Both the National Front and the British Democratic Party have agreed to stand aside from this General Election, recognising that it will be dominated by the Brexit issue and that most racial nationalists will wish to use their votes to support a pro-Brexit candidate. (Though there is of course a minority of our movement that takes an anti-Brexit line, following the tradition of Sir Oswald Mosley’s post-war Union Movement.)

For the BNP, David Furness will be contesting the Hornchurch & Upminster constituency in outer East London, where he seems to be the only non-Tory, pro-Brexit candidate. He is the only BNP candidate nationwide: this is the tenth general election that the BNP has contested since it was founded in 1982, and its lowest-ever number of candidates.

Former BNP activist Dr Andrew Emerson is contesting his home constituency of Chichester for the Patria party which he formed with LEL, NF and BNP veteran Dennis Whiting and fellow nationalists who broke away from the BNP some years ago. This will be Dr Emerson’s third parliamentary campaign in Chichester during the past four years: this time he has no opponent from UKIP or the Brexit Party.

Gary Butler, who was NF candidate for Maidstone & the Weald in 2010 and English Democrat candidate for Faversham & Mid Kent in 2015, is an Independent candidate this year, again for Faversham & Mid Kent.

Meanwhile in the Liverpool West Derby constituency, veteran nationalist activist Joe Owens appears as proposer on the nomination papers of Brexit Party candidate Ray Pearson – though Mr Owens has recently posted a YouTube video criticising party leader Nigel Farage for striking a deal to stand down 317 candidates in Tory-held constituencies.

Vicky Felton – councillor for the Democrats & Veterans Party in Monk Bretton ward, Barnsley – is the Brexit Party candidate for Barnsley Central. There has not been any announcement of a merger between D&V and the Brexit Party, and Mrs Felton’s husband Gavin remains D&V Party chairman, so this might be a temporary arrangement just for this election. Similarly Rebecca Rees-Evans, husband of D&V founder and leader Jonathan Rees-Evans, is Brexit Party candidate for Cynon Valley, where she was UKIP candidate in 2015.

There are five English Democrat candidates this year (only one of whom has a Brexit Party opponent and none of whom have UKIP opponents); while the Veterans and People’s Party is contesting Great Yarmouth, without Brexit Party or UKIP opposition, and Linlithgow & East Falkirk, where it has a Brexit Party opponent.

There are only 44 UKIP candidates nationwide (down from 467 just two years ago) – including two in Northern Ireland and seven in Scotland – but in thirteen of these constituencies UKIP and the Brexit Party are standing against each other, including two in Sunderland, two in Sheffield, and Oldham West & Royton.

There are ex-UKIP independents standing in several constituencies, including former party leader Henry Bolton, who will be Independent candidate for his home constituency Folkestone & Hythe. His splinter party Our Nation was deregistered last month after only a year in existence.

H&D will feature reports and analysis on the UK General Election during the next few weeks, and our January 2020 edition will examine future strategies for our movement once the Brexit issue has (one way or another) been resolved.

Spanish nationalist party surges ahead

Vox leader Santiago Abascal addressing a party rally

Yesterday’s general election in Spain saw the nationalist party Vox double its number of MPs from 24 to 52, after its vote increased from 10.3% to 15.1%.

Vox has been in existence for less than six years, and achieved its first significant electoral success at regional elections in Andalusia, southern Spain, last December.

Yesterday was the second Spanish general election in seven months. In April Vox (who had never previously polled above 1% in a general election) managed 10.3% and won parliamentary seats for the first time. Following yesterday’s result, left-wing opponents feared that Spain’s “far-right” is now “one of the strongest in Europe”.

Some observers perceived the latest Vox success as partly a backlash by traditionalist voters against the vindictive decision by Spain’s leftwing rulers to exhume the remains of General Francisco Franco (who ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 after a successful anti-communist revolt).

Spain’s leftwing rulers recently exhumed the remains of former leader Gen. Francisco Franco from his tomb at the Valley of the Fallen (above) near Madrid.

This year’s two general elections have been a disaster for Spain’s mainstream conservative parties, the long-established People’s Party (some of whose right-wing broke away to form Vox at the end of 2013) and the ‘centre-right’ Citizens party.

Yesterday the PP won back some seats at the expense of the Citizens, who lost 47 of their 57 seats. The important fact however is that while Spanish nationalism (which had been electorally insignificant since General Franco’s death in 1975) is rapidly advancing, the conservative parties are in crisis.

The two conservative parties combined now have only 98 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, down from 123 in April this year and 169 in 2016.

This is a phenomenon repeated in several European countries, notably Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU-CSU is divided over whether to continue ruling out future coalitions with the ever-stronger anti-immigration party AfD.

The one big exception is the UK, which while politics remains dominated by the Brexit question has had no chance to develop any serious nationalist and anti-immigration force.

Later this week H&D will begin detailed coverage of the UK’s 2019 General Election, comparing our political line-up with the rest of Europe, and asking how our movement can progress in a post-Brexit nation.

Remembering the Fallen

101 years ago today the guns fell silent after more than four years of slaughter, at the end of the 20th century’s first European Civil War.

H&D readers take varying views of Brexit (the majority in favour of leaving the EU) but we should admit that at least some of those who created what became the European Union were genuinely motivated by the noble aim of ensuring that such a war never happened again.

Whatever happens with the Brexit process, British nationalists should aim for a continent of Europeans co-existing peacefully and prepared to unite when necessary to defend our common heritage against alien invasion.

And we should never forget that the British establishment parties (Lib, Lab and Con) shamefully politicised Remembrance Day when for blatantly political reasons they banned Rhodesian (and later South African) ex-serviceman from participating in the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph.

This is why the National Front (initially under its founding chairman A.K. Chesterton, who won the Military Cross on the Western Front in 1918) began its own tradition of a march to the Cenotaph – a tradition which was upheld once again yesterday.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

The latest Holocaustian testimony

The Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig

Today’s testimony in a Hamburg state court room might well be the last time that an accused ‘war criminal’ gives evidence about the functioning of supposedly homicidal gas chambers.

If so, it is consistent with Holocaustian tradition that this contradictory and by any reckoning unsatisfactory ‘evidence’ has been trumpeted today by the mainstream media with conclusive headlines such as the Guardian‘s ‘Ex-Nazi camp guard admits seeing people taken to gas chamber’.

Bruno Dey – now aged 93 but 17 when he served as a sentry in the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig – stated in today’s testimony that from his watchtower he saw on one occasion 20 or 30 “people were led in, into the gas chamber, then the door was locked”. He then heard screams and banging, but added “I didn’t know that they were being gassed.”

How in that case, one might ask, did he know that it was a gas chamber – especially given that elsewhere in his evidence Mr Dey mentions that on another occasion he saw 10 or 15 people taken into the same building, who later walked out again?

But of course Mr Dey, like the rest of us, has been told for the past seventy-odd years that there were gas chambers in Stutthof and elsewhere. And he no doubt believes that his best chance of acquittal is to say – yes, I now realise there was a gas chamber, but I didn’t know at the time and I was only a 17-year-old guard…

Cross-examination will inevitably focus not on the question of whether Mr Dey indeed saw a homicidal gas chamber in operation, but on the extent of his share in collective guilt.

In the Introduction to his four volumes of Écrits Revisionnistes, first published in 1999, the late, great Professor Robert Faurisson wrote:
It is a good thing that the exterminationists have finally (or very nearly) come to abandon, in practice, the charge, based on “testimonies”, according to which there existed execution gas chambers at the camps of Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Hartheim, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof-Danzig, Bergen-Belsen…

It had indeed seemed in recent decades that orthodox historians had given up some of their wildest claims. Yet still it goes on. We will look in vain for any attempt by the Hamburg court to examine forensic or documentary evidence as to whether this ‘execution gas chamber’ at Stutthof (or any other) actually existed.

After all, the court has just heard a 93-year-old eyewitness. What further proof could be required?

One more brick in the Holocaustian edifice. Whether this amounts to history or justice is a question one dare not ask in Hamburg, nor across most of 21st century Europe, on pain of imprisonment. In a few weeks time, for example, Ursula Haverbeck will celebrate her 91st birthday in a Bielefeld prison, 150 miles south of the Hamburg courtroom. Her crime – to have asked the questions that the Hamburg court avoids.

A detailed book about Stutthof has been published by Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, but there is no possibility of the authors being allowed to give expert testimony in a German court.

Brexit crisis: will Johnson and Farage bury party differences?

Today’s unanimous verdict by the Supreme Court, ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in obtaining the prorogation of Parliament, throws the entire Brexit process into doubt.

Johnson no longer controls the House of Commons, which at any time during the run-up to the October 31st deadline could have thrown a spanner in the works, preventing either a “no deal” Brexit or whatever new terms Johnson himself might negotiate.

Neither was he able to seek a fresh mandate at a General Election: since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 makes an early election impossible without the opposition’s consent – and there was no chance of such consent until Brexit had been delayed or frustrated. So Johnson’s team believed they could put Parliament out of action for a few weeks, leaving MPs with insufficient time for Brexit-blocking.

That cunning plan has badly misfired.

Amid the confusion one thing is clear: Brexit will be dead unless Prime Minister Johnson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage can work together.

Leading government adviser Dominic Cummings is the main block to any deal between Johnson and Farage

Today such cooperation looks unlikely. The PM’s chief aide Dominic Cummings loathes Farage (which is the main reason why there were two rival pro-Brexit campaigns at the 2016 Referendum). That split didn’t matter during the referendum: in fact it might have been an advantage, but it would be fatal at a General Election. Farage reciprocates the loathing: his main reaction to today’s judgment was not to defend the Brexit process but to attack Dominic Cummings.

H&D readers are themselves divided on the merits of Brexit itself. But for Brexiteers the imperative is clear: Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage must not turn on each other, or the entire process will be derailed.

Brexit Party continues alliance with terror apologists

James Heartfield – Brexit Party candidate, lifelong Marxist and IRA apologist

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has often seemed to have a blind spot when it comes to Northern Ireland, and H&D has previously highlighted the disgraceful decision to field IRA apologist Claire Fox – a lifelong Marxist – as his party’s number one candidate for North West England at the European elections in June.

Though one of her fellow candidates quit in disgust, Ms Fox is now a Brexit Party MEP, and the party’s dalliance with fanatical supporters of Republican terrorists continues.

For perhaps the first time H&D readers will have found themselves agreeing to a large extent with Observer columnist Nick Cohen this week, when he pointed out that “Farage supports the old cadres of the Revolutionary Communist party, which hugged the most extreme elements in Irish republicanism”.

In fact these RCP veterans consistently pursued a pro-IRA agenda that was even worse than that of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Ken Livingstone. They were also conspiracy-minded apologists for Serbia during the Yugoslav civil war, apparently because the Serbs were fighting the Croats, who had been allied to the wicked Nazis during the Second World War!

IRA apologist Claire Fox (now a Brexit Party MEP) with party leader Nigel Farage.

One of these old Leninists, James Heartfield, will be the Brexit Party candidate for Islington North, standing against Corbyn, at the next general election. Heartfield was a Revolutionary Communist party organiser in Islington and Manchester. His wife Eve Kay-Kreizman was also an activist in the RCP and the pro-IRA Irish Freedom Network, but has since enjoyed a 20-year career as a television producer.

Other ex-RCP / Living Marxism candidates for the Brexit Party have included Alka Sehgal Cuthbert (daughter of Indian immigrants and a candidate on the Brexit Party’s London slate at the Euro elections), and Stuart Waiton (on the Scottish slate).

After the IRA murdered two schoolboys (12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball) in Warrington in 1993, Heartfield’s publication wrote: “We defend the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures are necessary in their struggle for freedom.”

Nigel Farage’s struggle to free the United Kingdom from the European Union would be a lot better off without these Leninist/Fenian relics.

Secret tapes show politicians once dared to speak about race

President Richard Nixon (above left) in conversation at the White House with Prof. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In July this year the US National Archives released a previously secret tape recording of then President Richard Nixon and future President Ronald Reagan speaking frankly about racial differences.

Today two American scholars writing in The Atlantic reveal that these forbidden views were not held only Reagan and Nixon, a man who of course has long been demonised by the political establishment, but by an ultra-respectable academic.

The President was conversing in October 1971 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who had previously been an adviser to Nixon but was more closely associated with the Democratic Party. Indeed despite his bipartisanship, Moynihan was for decades an icon of America’s liberal intelligentsia.

Yet on this White House tape and in an earlier memorandum, Prof. Moynihan explicitly recognised racial realities. Commenting on an article on race and IQ by Richard Herrnstein published earlier that year, Moynihan wrote: “Herrnstein is, of course, very much worth reading. The findings of intelligence testing, which he summarizes, have profound implications for social policy. …Psychologists now think they know something of the ranking of the major races. Asians first; Caucasians second; Africans third.”

Prof Richard Herrnstein was co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that pointed out the differences between black and white IQ.

Moynihan agreed with the President that in implementing federal programmes to promote black education, he had to bear in mind their fundamental weaknesses – that because of their IQ blacks would basically be at a disadvantage “when you get to some of the more, shall we say, some of the more profound, rigid disciplines”.

His memo to Nixon concluded with pragmatic advice that no doubt influences even those few politicians today honest enough to address racial realities: “Finally, may I plead that you say nothing about this subject, nor let anyone around you do so. There is no possibility of your concern being depicted for what it is, a desire to respond to knowledge in a responsible and prudent manner.”

Moynihan died in 2003, but he would not be surprised that 21st century journalists and scholars are using these newly revealed tapes not to challenge their own liberal multiracialist dogmas, but to demonise Moynihan himself.

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

Leading proponent of the latest Holocaust memorial, Lord Pickles (ex-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Italy heads for ‘post-fascist’ coalition

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni at a conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

Matteo Salvini – the leading anti-immigration politician in Europe – is set to realign Italian politics with a new, ‘post-fascist’ coalition.

As interior minister and deputy prime minister in the present Italian government, Salvini has already pursued radical and highly popular policies to protect Italy from tides of immigrants crossing the Mediterranean.

However – as H&D has consistently argued – the coalition between his Lega party and the anti-establishment (but essentially liberal) Five Star Movement was always incoherent and unlikely to last.

Though it is obvious that Salvini is now deliberately looking for an excuse to break up the coalition, this should be seen not as an unscrupulous bid for personal power, but as an attempt to create a more ideologically stable coalition, probably with the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) party, one of several movements that grew out of the postwar fascist party MSI.

Fratelli and their leader Giorgia Meloni have for several years been allied to the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament, an inconvenient fact that doesn’t get mentioned in the alarmist analysis published today in the Sunday Telegraph.

Nevertheless a Lega-Fratelli alliance would be a bold challenge to the postwar European consensus, and would probably succeed in winning a solid majority for an explicitly anti-immigration, pro-White government, whenever new Italian elections are held.

The biggest short-term problem is that Italy’s constitution allows all sorts of delays which might involve the President appointing a ‘centrist’ government that could hold power for many months without elections.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter