ANDREW BRONS BNP MEP - HOW TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS WITH THE LEFT WING PRESS

This is how the British National Party should be. Andrew Brons shows how to conduct interviews by the Far Laft NUJ led Media.

Well done Andrew.

Labour25 the official video of the Labour Party Beasts

New Labour supports PAEDOPHILES which is why they have at least 25 in the party.
Harriet Harman is a major supporter of RIGHTS for PAEDOPHILES and wants to LOWER the AGE OF CONSENT.
Now I wonder why that is ?

Lord Longford (Marxist Labour peer and uncle to Marxist and known Zionist Labour party Shadow Secretary of State and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman) - Was obsessed with paedophile child killer Myra Hindley

Lessons from the Ivory Coast

The crisis in the Ivory Coast has important lessons for Europe, Israel and the United States.  And none of these lessons is being conveyed by the Western media.
The most important aspects of the crisis in the Ivory Coast are being overlooked or deliberately disguised by the Western media.  One can read media report after media report without discovering the basic fact that the Northern Ivory Coast “rebels” are Muslims.  Indeed they are Muslims who by and large entered the Ivory Coast as infiltrators, through borders that are poorly patrolled, from neighboring countries.  A better advertisement for stronger border control cannot be found.  At least four million illegal immigrants, mostly Muslim, entered the Ivory Coast during the past two decades, tilting the demographic balance there.
And these Muslim infiltrators and interlopers, increasingly backed by African, French and Western powers, are challenging the control by Ivory Coast natives over their own country.  The sufferings and violence in the Ivory Coast may well illustrate what awaits Europe if it continues its own demographic suicide and if it continues to flood itself with Muslim immigrants.  The conflict also illustrates the extent to which the Western powers are willing to subvert their commitment to Wilsonian principles.  Since Woodrow Wilson and the end of World War I, the West was nominally committed to erecting and defending nation states.  We now see that the Western powers (and African regimes) are willing to abandon this set of principles whenever faced with a cheap way to curry favor with Muslims.  Finally, it shows what awaits Israel if its seditious Left ever has its way and implements a Palestinian “Right of Return” that converts Israel into a “bi-national state.”
The Ivory Coast of today, or Côte d’Ivoire, is essentially a bi-national state, although each “nation” is in fact a collection of tribes.  The northern “nation” is Muslim; the southern “nation” consists of Christians and other Non-Muslims.  Built upon a territory that had once been home to several tribal statelets before the era of colonization, it fell under French partial control in the 1840s, and became a formal French colony in 1893.  French is still the official language spoken there, in addition to many local tribal tongues.  The French hung around until 1960, when the Ivory Coast became independent.  Once independent, the country was one of the most prosperous in Africa, thanks to its large cocoa crop.  The country has been politically unstable since a coup in 1999 and a civil war that began in 2002.
The background to the civil war and the current constitutional crisis is the massive in-migration of Muslims from the countries neighboring the Ivory Coast, mainly from Burkina Faso.  The infiltrators settled in the northern half of the country, and also in pockets in the south, including in some neighborhoods inside the country’s largest city, Abidjan.  Today Muslims, including illegals, are almost 40% of the population of the country (although Muslim and other sources claim they are really considerably higher), the remainder being a mixture of Christians (mainly Roman Catholics) and animists.
Tensions between the immigrant population and the indigenous Ivorians goes back to the 1960s.  Successive governments there have regarded the immigrants to be “circumstantial Ivorians” (their term), as opposed to the “pure Ivorians,” who are the natives.  The illegal “aliens” constitute more than a quarter of the current population of the country.  The alien-native dichotomy overlaps to a large extent with the divisions between non-Muslims and Muslims, and is the most important background factor in explaining the ongoing civil war.
The current political standoff in the Ivory Coast is largely a Muslim-Christian confrontation.  The “rebels” represent the Muslims of the country, especially of the north, and in particular the “aliens.”  They are led by Hassan Ouattara, whose parents were evidently illegal immigrants into the Ivory Coast from Burkina Faso.  Hence he personally illustrates and epitomizes the “alien” character of the “rebel” forces.  An economist who once worked for the IMF, he calls his rebel militia the “New Force.”  The “government” forces represent the indigenous and traditional non-Muslim Ivorians.  Their leader is the current President (or, if you prefer, “president”) Laurent Gbagbo, a one-time university professor, who has been the official head of state since 2000.  He claims to be a socialist and anti-imperialist.  The government claims that neighboring Muslim states have intervened in the civil war on the side of the Muslims

Civil war broke out in the country in 2002.  The “rebels,” whose support base is the Muslim north, challenged the “government,” whose power base was the non-Muslim south.  Atrocities were committed on both sides.  Each side accuses the other of using mercenaries.  French military forces in the country participated in some of the fighting, increasingly on the side of the “rebels.”
The elections that were to have taken place in 2005 were postponed repeatedly until 2010, in part at the initiative of the UN.  A power-sharing arrangement between the two main sides in the conflict went into effect in 2007 but did not hold for long.  None of the forces in the country seemed to want new elections to be held, since electoral forces were evenly matched between the two halves of the now “bi-national” state.  When they were eventually held in 2010, Gbagbo lost by a thin margin.  But he refused to accept those results as conclusive and compelling.  Aside from claims of widespread fraud, Gbagbo insisted that the victory of the party of Ouattaro was entirely thanks to the votes of the millions of illegal immigrants participating in the election!
Other African countries, led by predominantly-Muslim Nigeria, have been backing the “rebels.”  A number of African countries have called for armed intervention on the side of those “rebels.”  After a period of respite, violence began to escalate a few weeks ago.  New Forces, now renamed the Republican Forces of Côte d’Ivoire (RFCI) have been beating Gbagbo’s army in the field, took the country’s capital city, and are now holding parts of Abidjan.  Gbagbo is under siege in his headquarters and expected to fall any day now.  Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the battle zones, seeking refuge in neighboring countries, especially Liberia.
The conflict is too complex for a simplistic assignment of forces into categories of “good buys” and “bad guys.”   There are solid bases for skepticism about the true commitment to democratic rule by either side.
Nevertheless, the conflict in the Ivory Coast shows what happens when massive illegal immigration leads to the demographic eclipse of a native population.  The same Western powers so ready to strip the Serbs of their heartland to create a second Albanian nation-state in Kosovo have been unwilling to sustain any nation-state for indigenous Ivorians, and indeed have backed the aliens.  Evidently the Western countries still adhere to Wilsonian principles about ethnic states and self-determination only when it is to the liking of Muslims.
But the even more obvious lesson from all this is the instability of “bi-national” states and the impossibility of preventing them from morphing into killing grounds.  This should have been obvious from the experiences in Rwanda.
Yet this is precisely the fashionable “solution” to the Middle East conflict being promoted by the Bash-Israel Lobby.  The bigots and boycotters demand that Israel agree to be demolished and enfolded into a larger “bi-national state,” one that would be dominated by Arabs and Muslims.  Such an experiment in “bi-nationalism” would end in the best-case scenario as a civil war resembling the one in the Ivory Coast, and in the worst-case scenario in a Rwandan-style genocide.  Ultimately, a new genocide against Jews is exactly what the Anti-Israel Lobby seeks.  It is also the hidden agenda of the “BDS” (or Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement of economic aggression against Israel, and its close ally, the “Israel Apartheid Week” Hitlerjugend.
Massive Muslim immigration is also transforming Europe demographically, in ways strikingly similar to the influx of immigrants into the Ivory Coast.  France, Belgium, and other parts of Western Europe may soon find themselves the European Ivorians, the “Other,” the stranger and disenfranchised inside their own home countries.

Morg
.

REPLY TO LANKYS GOVERNMNT CENSORSHIP REQUEST.

MORE ABOUT THE EU AND OUR ARMED FORCES CUTS.

Gutting our defences

This week the Dutch armed forces were hit with the stiffest cuts in budget and capabilities in recent memory. DutchNews has the short version: One in six defence workers to go within four years.

Over 6,000 military service personnel and defence ministry civil servants are facing compulsory redundancies, ahead of Friday’s cabinet decision on how to make savings of €1bn in the defence budget, NOS television reports.

In total, 12,300 defence ministry jobs will go as part of the savings package, NOS says. Some 2,300 vacancies will not be filled and a further 4,000 people will not be replaced when they leave.

The ministry currently has a workforce of almost 69,000.

The job losses will affect all ranks in the defence ministry, according to government sources quoted in the Volkskrant.

Defence minister Hans Hillen also plans to scrap tanks and Cougar helicopters, to cut the 87 F-16 fighter jets by around a third and to sell off a number of naval vessels.

The controversial purchase of a second JSF fighter jet for €100m will go ahead to protect the participation of Dutch firms in its development and production.

The reporting makes it sound as if 'some' tanks are scrapped, but in actuality all Leopard MBTs will we stricken from the inventory, as will all Cougar transport helicopters and, astonishingly, all minesweepers. The Navy alone will lose a quarter of its capability. That in a time when piracy is rampant and Dutch shipping companies are turning to the Navy for support.

This gutting of our armed forces is necessary, according to our government, to realize a budget cut of 1 billion euros.

Let me put this into perspective. From the website of the Central Bureau of Statistics I gleaned the following overview of defence spending from 2003 to 2009:

2003 7.404 bln
2004 7.551 bln
2005 7.693 bln
2006 8.145 bln === Start of Uruzgan mission
2007 8.388 bln
2008 8.488 bln
2009 8.733 bln

Definitive numbers for 2010 and 2011 are not yet available from the CBS website, but the budgets published on the ministry of defences website seems to indicate these numbers are between the spending of 2008 and 2009.

What this shows is that heading the Taskforce Uruzgan if Afghanistan increased the Dutch defence budget by 1.1 billion euros. Since the Dutch withdrew from Uruzgan late last year, one would think the cuts needed would or could restore the status quo ante, when we also has a functioning and capable armed services.

I am not in a position to argue whether the status quo ante is desirable, nor am I arguing that we should. I am just making the observation that even with the budget reduced by a cool billion, we were entirely capable to field a believable army, navy and air force.

So, what changed? What is going on here? Why does a budget cut of 1 billion euro make a gutting of our armed forces imperative? I get the uncomfortable feeling that there is something more at play here.

The cuts made are so deep and wide that hardly a single arm of our forces will, after the cuts are effected, be able to operate independently. In a conflict high in the violence spectrum, the Dutch can operate as recon for those armed services that have tanks, while Dutch infantry in such a conflict will have to depend on tanks from foreign services for back up. The same goes for the navy and the air force.

These cuts, the way they are being made, give the distinct impression that this government is out to ensure that Dutch armed forces will of necessity have to co-operate with the services of other nations to operate safely and effectively.

And why is that a bad thing? Because any national defence capability that is dependent on the active cooperation and involvement of another nation before it can be deployed is, by definition, not sovereign. The Dutch government is actively abdicating one of the key areas, one of the most important core businesses, of any government anywhere: To protect the people and the country it serves from threats, from without or from within.

The most infuriating part of it is that these measures are taken by a government that is supposed to be right-wing. Moreover, PM Mark Ruttes own party, conservative liberal VDD, made it an election promise to halt the slow decay of our armed forces. Indeed, they did. They stopped the decay by quickly, allright, and are actively tearing our army, navy and air force down now. That's progress, I guess (!).

That ugly head you see rearing goes by the name of van Rompuy, the little troll pretending to be president to all Europeans. Earlier we saw a same gutting of the armed forces in the UK. This has been used as a pretext to boost the "Anglo-French military co-operation" amply documented by Dr. Richard North here, here and here. At the time Dr. North observed: 'Anyone who thinks that Anglo-French military "co-operation" isn't a Trojan Horse for the EU Army needs their brains examined'. It isn't overly paranoid to suspect the same type of mechanism being deployed by the Dutch government to hand over our armed forces to the EUnion. And typically, this angle is completely ignored by what passes for our independent main stream media.

Once again we are betrayed by those we entrusted with looking out for our interests. These new cuts in our military are as clear a sign as any that even this new right-wing government is hell-bent on destroying Dutch sovereignty and delivering us into the hands of that alien power, the EUnion. The feeling of being let down, of once again being betrayed by persons I thought, I was assured, I could trust, is all the more jarring, compared to the hope the installing of a right-wing, Danish-style cabinet engendered in those heady days last fall.

This much is now clear: Even a nominally right-wing government will not defend us. We are on our own. Our government is unwilling, as far as it is still able, to look out for our interest.

And beyond the current defence cuts, we have our MPs similarly abdicating their responsibilities. By and large they are representing not our, but their own interests. Our MSM is actively engaged in feeding us propaganda and preventing us from finding out what is really going on. Even THE symbol of our nation, the royal family, have left the Dutch to fend for themselves, while they actively promote the tranzi cause.

We are alone and have only ourselves to turn to for the defence of our freedom, our sovereignty and our prosperity. And it is time to start being seriously angry about this state of affairs.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2011/04/this-week-dutch-armed-forces-were-hit.html

Now look at what's happening to our armed forces.  It's the EU playing its games.

Morg
.

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP

Last month there was a peaceful demonstration in Birkenhead by the group "Lawful Rebellion" in which a judge was arrested amid scenes of chaos in the court.
The demonstration was because the judiciary are going beyond their remit by sitting in a court which contradicts the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights and thus renders them liable to arrest for treason, and this is what happened.

Now whatever the rights and wrongs about this case the actions since uncover something sinister.

The proceedings were filmed and publicised on you tube and indeed a film was put on our blog.

HOWEVER,

The film has now been taken off you tube "on instructions from the government"

You would be entitled to ask why?

NOT MUCH OPENNESS HERE IS THERE

This footage was amateur footage with no copyright so why are the government so anxious to have it taken down? It was just a record of what happened.
Are they frightened that people may see it and realise the con trick which is being visited on us?
The film has evidently frightened the powers that be, the same powers that complained about censorship in China.
They have exposed themselves as complicit in censorship and confirmed the justice of those protesting.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT A COUNTRY OF FREE SPEECH.
I am sure the organisers of the event will have a DVD copy which can be circulated, but in any case many will have aready have seen the video.

If anybody has a copy please let me know and I will duplicate as many as necessary (a thousand if they want) to spread the message, a message that has been shown to have frightened the authorities by their actions.

We will overcome this censorship as we are not in China,AND I WILL DO MY UTMOST TO SPREAD THE TRUTH.

THIS IS JUST THE START OF THE PEOPLE'S FIGHTBACK

UAF DEMO BLACKBURN

To the far left of the screen at 2mins 50secs you can see Martin Smith SWP/UAF SCUM with a Steward, who Smith hands out quite a bit of cash to, and a FAT BLOKE with a Blue shirt on and Black Hoodie (The same shirt that he has worn everytime the SCUM tried to disrupt our Tabletops in Wigan and Ashton Town Centres), does anyone know who he is ?