BADLUCK FOR GOODLUCK

Elections were held in Nigeria last week which were judged by international observers as fair which is unusual in an African state.
This however did not stop rioting and bloodshed.
Why?
Because the North of the country is muslim and the South is Christian and the winner the strangely named Goodluck Jonathan was named the president.

In spite of his name he has the badluck of having a muslim population in the North of his country which does not believe in democracy and when they lose an election resort to violence.

It is Goodluck's badluck that although fairly elected his country has a large minority of muslims who do not believe in the rule of law or democracy.

What has this got to do with us? you may ask.

Well it illustrates the danger when muslims meet with non muslims in one country and the former's violence in the promotion of their aims.

Yes well that is Africa you may well say, and so it is but muslims are the same the world over, always aggressive and not amenable to the non muslim rule of law.

This is a scenario we will face before long if we allow this alien medieval cult to expand in our country.
We must halt ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION into our country now and curtail the activities of those already here.

The trouble in the Ivory Coast has a similar cause, muslim violence against non muslims.

Wherever in the world from Asia to Africa the devotees of this evil cult impinge on the other moderate and more civilised people there is trouble.

We must avoid the badluck that Goodluck has to put up with in his own country.

So I wish you luck Goodluck in your fight against barbarism and hope you can snuff this evil cancer from your land, and I hope our government can see the dangers of the same happening here.

WHY IS NATIONALISM NOT PROGRESSING IN BRITAIN?

The news last week that the nationalist True Finns party gained 29% of the vote in their country gives the nationalists of Europe cause for hope.

The Finns, a brave country who have suffered and repelled invaders, notably the Soviet Union have once again shown their independence and their wish for freedom and the good nationalist vote in that country is putting strains on the European superstate.

One can understand these brave people who have so bravely protected their country over the years and built up great shipbuilding and electronics industries without the "benefits" of diversity in a harsh climate.
They have fought and suffered for their freedom and built their industries and asked for nothing but the right to run their country as they wish.

This people is composed of patriots, and having fought for freedom will not give it up lightly.

Other European countries such as Denmark and Holland are also embracing the nationalist cause, seeing that the EU is Communism or Naziism lite as yet.

Our leaders still occasionally talk the talk but will not walk the walk and continue to appease the EU and allow hordes of aliens into our country against the wishes of the people.
Even the supposedly "patriotic" UKIP has newly arrived Sri Lankan to leaflet for them, a sure demonstration that they are just a safety valve for disaffected Tories.

What is wrong with our people?

Perhaps we haqve not suffered enough to value our nation and its culture as the Finns and Danes have.

BUT ask people in the street whether they agree with the policies of the BNP and over 50% say they do BUT THEY DON'T VOTE FOR US.

WHY?

One reason of course is apathy. I'm alright Jack, for now and they can not see the impending economic and demographic catastrophe.

Another reason is the continuous vilification of our party by the capitalist controlled media who see us as a threat to their globalist agenda which would see the people as units of production or consumption in "the post democratic society", not my words but those of Peter Mandelson.

However possibly an even bigger reason is us, our party which has not capitalised on the growing discontent of the people.

The British National Party has been run inefficiently both financially and structurally. It's no good having good policies if they are not put in a way that resonates with the public.

It's no good having a party with a structure so shambolic that no one knows who is doing what and good and senior members are sacked for asking questions and those financial questions are not answered.
In effect the party is inefficient in finance and structure.

HOWEVER the main fault with the Party is that it is not democratic and the leader has so much power that no one dare question it.

Nick Griffin has done a lot for the BNP and worked but no one is perfect and he has made some howling mistakes which have set back our cause.
He has become a liability and many people, although they agree with our policies will not support us while he is leader.

He has too much baggage and although many on the Left have similar and worse baggage in the political climate we must have a leader who is squeaky clean. That is the nature of politics in Britain now, and we and he has to accept that, unjust though it is.
If he really believes in Nationalism he should step down and we would thank him for that.
If he decides to remain as leader and contests the next challenge he will show he cares more about himself than the cause.

There are many good people who could take his place or could develop into leaders but such is the dictatorship of the present setup they dare not put their heads above the parapet or they risk expulsion.

WE need a new leader and one will emerge.
Even more we need unity, to put past differences behind us and work together for the sake of our country and future.
We need to keep our membership in the Party or we will not have the chance to elect a new and even better leader, untainted by past indiscretions. Small splinter parties will achieve nothing.

ABOVE ALL we need honesty. Nationalism is on the rise all over Europe and we need to ask "why is it not rising here"?

If we can not be honest with ourselves and realise our own weaknesses and shortcomings we will fail to progress as patriots in other countries have.

AND WE WILL NOT DESERVE TO for if we can not run a party efficiently when the people are crying out for a voice-- how will we ever be fit to run a country?

ONE LAW FOR SOME ...

The moron who burned the poppies at the Remembrance Day service gets a £50 fine and outraged a nation.

Emdadur Choudhury Islamic scumbag

London Evening Standard

The Prime Minister told the Commons that a "stronger statement" should have been made to show public disgust at the man's action.

"I think to many of us, you look at something like that and feel that we should be making a stronger statement that the sort of behaviour is out of order and has no place in a tolerant country," he said.

Now a guy who burns a Koran in protest gets a 70 day prison sentence.

Cumberland News.

A man who burned a copy of the Koran in Carlisle city centre was today jailed for 70 days.

Andrew Ryan, 32, of Summerhill, off London Road, was accompanied to Carlisle Magistrates' Court by supporters carrying a St George's Cross flag who were chanting "We love you England".

Ryan had pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harrassment and theft of the Koran holy book from Carlisle Library at an earlier hearing.

Ok it wasn't his Koran, he stole it from the library, however that normally involves just a fine not a custodial sentence, but 70 days for outraging Muslims whilst the moron who burned a poppy and outraged the nation gets only a £50 fine?
The word disproportionate seems to apply here. After all if some idiot artist can put on display a bible to be defaced and has nothing done to them. this guy should surely have expected the same, save I suppose that he didn't call it art.
I suspect Andrew Ryan  will end up a hero in some quarters, despite the theft, I have to admit I don't like the idea of burning books, but I have never felt so close to burning a Koran as I've done this afternoon, sadly though I now know the cost of freedom of expression and that's 70 days in jail.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS 

George Orwell, Animal Farm Chapter 10. 

Read the rest - comments are good.

 

http://quietmanmyblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-law-for-some.html 

Morg

.

COWS

I read this somewhere on the internet; forgotten where:

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Appleby almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the county of Cumbria?

And, they even tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 125,000 illegal immigrants wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow. 

Makes you think, eh?

Morg
.

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
.