web analytics


By ATWadmin On July 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

nappy203x250.jpgThis is an odd one for sure. Donkey owners in the Kenyan town of Limuru are up in arms over an order from the municipal authorities that their animals must wear nappies. The council said the measure would come into effect on 16 July to ensure the town’s streets are kept clean. But recent press coverage and outrage from the town’s residents has led the authorities to put their plans on hold. "If we have to put nappies on our donkeys, soon they will say our cows need them too," one donkey owner said. Prophetic words, first they came for the donkeys…

Actually, given the environmental concerns about disposable nappies, I was wondering if these would be reusable nappies because let’s face it it would be a rather unpleasant job being the person who has to..ahem..wash..the donkeys nappy! And can you imagine what a cow’s nappy would be like?

What REALLY worries me is that if Gordon Brown gets to hear about this, I can see his Government forcing all of us to wear nappies as part of their infantilisation of the UK population….


By ATWadmin On July 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am

White farmers forced off land
(Displaced white farmers in Zimbabwe)

After slaughtering, robbing and evicting the whites of Africa, it looks as though black Zimbabwe is tired of its Communist dictator, Mugabe and is screaming frantically for the whites they despised to bail them out.

For decades the benighted Africans have uncritically adored Mugabe. He has gone from crowd to crowd of cheering Africans where he has induced standing ovations for his anti-white stance. Rian Malan, a prominent Afrikaner journalist describes his shock and disbelief at seeing for the first time, the fanatical hero worship of black Africa for Mugabe:

I first saw Robert Mugabe in the flesh at a UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg
in 2002. His arrival on the podium was preceded by US defence secretary
Colin Powell, who was booed and jeered, and by Tony Blair, who met with
similar indignities. Mugabe, on the other hand, was greeted by a tumultuous
standing ovation. I wrote it off as a passing fad. At the time, black power
fanatics were still pumped up over Mugabe’s ethnic cleansing of white
farmers, and one assumed their enthusiasm would wear off once the
consequences of Mugabe’s folly manifested themselves.

Not so. By 2004, Zimbabwe’s economy was in freefall and his subjects were
growing hungry, but Mugabe was more popular than ever. No, not in Zimbabwe.
His fans were black people elsewhere. He received standing ovations in many
African capitals, and at President Mbeki’s 2004 swearing-in ceremony. By
then, it was clear that his ‘fast-track land-reform programme’ had not
significantly reversed his unpopularity at home, and he had already taken to
bludgeoning black opponents and rigging elections in order to stay in power.
His black supporters didn’t care. Mugabe was giving the whites hell. Mugabe
was therefore a hero. ‘Mugabe is speaking for black people worldwide,’ wrote
the Johannesburg commentator Harry Mashabela.

Why were they so crazy for him? Because he was ‘giving the whites hell’. After Mugabe seized power, his henchmen trained under the bloodthirsty auspices of North Korea, went on a killing spree in the industrious white farming community. Under Mugabe, the blacks rose up and seized the white farmers’ land, butchered them in their homes and in doing so, destroyed the economy and industry of the country beyond repair.

Now that they are destitute and ruined, they have once again turned to the whites, a spokesman for the nation is appealing to the same people group they so despised and treated so shamefully to come and bail them out:

ZIMBABWE’S leading cleric has called on Britain to invade the country and topple President Robert Mugabe. Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, warned that millions were facing death from famine, unable to survive amid inflation believed to have soared to 15,000%.

Mugabe, 83, had proved intransigent despite the “massive risk to life”, said Ncube, the head of Zimbabwe’s 1m Catholics. “I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe,” he said. “We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.”

Some parts of Zimbabwe have seen 95% of crops fail, leaving families with only two or three weeks’ food supply to last a year. Prices in the shops are more than doubling every week and Christopher Dell, the American ambassador, predicts that by the end of the year inflation could hit 1.5m%.

While there is a humanitarian disaster in that nation, I don’t think a knee-jerk rush-in-and-take-over attitude will cut it this time. It hasn’t done Africa any favours and they certainly haven’t appreciated the great white father figure coming to bail them out and fund them in the past. It’s time for a radical paradigm shift in the thinking of the west towards Africa and the mindsets of the Africans towards taking responsibility. In my opinion, it’s time for the black Africans to deal with Mugabe themselves. They need to unite and swarm him; get him out and elect an honest and fair leader who will represent their interests. From that point, they need to work hard and prove to the rest of the world that they are a viable trade partner in their own rights. But will they? Well, if they are desperate enough, they will have to or perish. I don’t know about the British military but the white farmers are not coming back.

HAT TIP: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Cross-posted at The Midnight Sun

Cameroon Over to My Place

By ATWadmin On June 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Cameroon is not a perfect country.  Where is?  Its government is riddled with corruption and banditry is very common in the region that borders Chad and the Central African Republic.  On a more positive note it has one of the highest literacy rates in Africa.  If we in the United Kingdom were to take in every African who complains about poverty and fear of reprisals in his/her own country (to look around the streets you’d think we already did) you wouldn’t be able to move for lips!

Martin ‘can I have a pound of pork chops’ McGuinness, the Godfather of Foyleside, has pledged to stand by Lordorice Djouonsto, a Cameroonian who has lost her appeal to remain in the UK.  She wants to be able to stay in Northern Ireland as her daughter was born there.  So what?  Stables, horses and all that.  What possible benefit could she bring to Ulster?  And why should she want to remain.  Cameroon’s government has corruption; Northern Ireland’s has people linked to the organisation that robbed £26 million from the Northern Bank.  Cameroon has banditry close to the border with Chad; Northern Ireland has banditry close to the border with the Republic – it’s called South Armagh (Marty has much greater knowledge of the banditry and blood-money mansions there than I do).

Don’t you just love the hypocrisy?  Whilst Don McGuinnesseone pleas for someone to remain who has manifestly failed the essential tests of acceptance – pathetically weak that they are, he cannot bring himself to call off his balaclava-wearing bully boys who have exiled people from Northern Ireland who were born there; whose parents, grandparents and great grandparents were also born there; and who were exiled for coming into conflict with his illegal terrorist henchmen.  Try letting the thousands of exiles back before going down on your knees for an African nobody!!

What happens when you stop giving aid to Africa?

By ATWadmin On June 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

This is another rehash of an old post from my blog – taken from October last year – but with the recent proclamations of St Bob and his crew it seems relevant today.

What happens when you stop giving aid to African nations?

They prosper.

At least they do if Somaliland is anything to go by. Never heard of it? Neither had I until recently. Somaliland is the English speaking region to the north of war torn Somalia formerly known as the British Somaliland Protectorate. It gained independence in 1960 and rushed into an ill judged merger with Italian Somaliland before declaring independence again in 1991 after the collapse of the Somali government of Said Barré .

Since declaring independence The Republic Of Somaliland has not been officially recognised by any other country. Consequently, it does not qualify to receive much in the way of aid, but that does not appear to have bothered it too much.
According to this article, in Somaliland "tar roads cover much of its 137000km², children are in school, hospitals have been set up, towns bombed by the late Said Barré have been rebuilt and, last year, Somaliland held the kind of general elections one would hope will come one day to Zimbabwe, Swaziland and even Somalia. Parties campaigned without hindrance, most of the media is in private hands and there was no intimidation of voters. "

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Since 1994 an estimated 400,000 refugees have returned to Somaliland from camps in eastern Ethiopia. A free press, democratic government, improving services and a state doing so well that people are flocking back in droves – but no one recognises it. Why not? According to the author of the above article, Geoff Hill, it is because of the African Union.

"In 1993, [the AU] recognised the split of Ethiopia and Eritrea, but the two states are still at war with each other. In theory, this could also happen with Somalia, which is determined to retake Somaliland, but Mogadishu has no army or even a public service."

Somalia determined to retake Somaliland? Somaliland isn’t interested in invading Somalia, but the aggressor nation is the one who gets the free run? Not recognising Somaliland will not stop Somalia invading it – if it ever becomes strong enough and stable enough to make the effort – but of course it will enable the AU, UN, EU and the rest to say "oh, it’s an internal war and none of our business" when Somalia does eventually start bombing Somaliland towns and murdering Somaliland citizens.

Somaliland has a long way to go still, but it looks to be well on the way to becoming a rare example of a prospering, modern, democratic nation in a part of the world where that is a rare thing. Even though it doesn’t receive the billions in aid that officially recognised African nations do.

Somaliland is not only prospering, it is also keen to form friendly relations with the west and, with it’s strategic location on the Horn Of Africa, it would make sense for the west to respond to those overtures. Perhaps even more importantly, Somaliland appears to fall into a category which we often hear discussed, but rarely see evidence for – a moderate Muslim state and a democratic one to boot.
We need a campaign to force Britain to officially recognise Somaliland – a democratic, free, moderate Muslim and English speaking nation.

Recognition for Somaliland now!


By ATWadmin On June 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Oh those ungrateful Africans. Who could forget the efforts of Sir Bob and the team back in the 80’s screaming into the TV, ‘Give us your f***ing money!’ and telling us all that we had to ‘save the world’? How heart-warming it was to see the rockstars from the ‘Big Country’ reaching out to those poor Africans. Why then has Geldof done such a huge about-face? Could it be that he’s heard this?

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

Read the rest of this entry »


By ATWadmin On May 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I have to congratulate President Bush on the moral clarity of the position he has adopted on the situation in Darfur. Fed up with the serial UN political paralysis to DO anything, the US has announced unilateral sanctions on Sudan. He has said that Sudanese companies and individuals involved in the violence in Darfur would be barred from trading or banking with the US. He also said he would push for a new UN Security Council resolution to put more pressure on President Omar al-Bashir. "For too long the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians,"

Mr Bush said. "My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide."

He has also said that sanctions will not be enough. But where is the SUPPORT from the "international community" for doing something other than issuing pious words? Might China’s support for Sudan – and its rich oil reserves – have something to do with this? Where are those lefties protesting "No more Sudanese Blood for Oil"? Darfur IS genocide, hundreds of thousands are killed- and yet, despite it all – the UN looks on impassively.  It’s Rwanda for slow learners. Now, what was that about the UN being the "world’s highest moral authority"?


By ATWadmin On April 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

daydafur.jpgToday is the Global Day for Darfur  with events taking place in 35 capitals to mark the fourth anniversary of the conflict. Protests included a rally in Downing Street in London, as well as a march on Rome’s Coliseum and a demonstration in the German capital Berlin. Some 200,000 people have died since the conflict began, according to the UN. Celebrities backing the campaign, such as George Clooney and Mick Jagger, have signed a statement accusing the international community of apathy.

Let’s be clear about a few points. What is happening in Darfur is Jihad-sponsored genocide. The "International Community", meaning the UN and its cheer-leaders in the liberal elite, are WELL AWARE of what has been going on for years now , and they are also well aware that each time the US has sought to have it defined as GENOCIDE these immoral whores in the UN have shown their characteristic cowardice and refused to accept this Why? Because accepting the Jihad-led Arab racist genocide might mean doing something and that is where the UN shows its utter ineptitude. It is useless and apart from pretty words, it can do nothing. Remember Rwanda?  

Also many of those who are out demonstrating today – turning round some 10,000 hourglasses filled with fake blood to highlight the continuing violence in Darfur  -will be the same people that demonstrate against US led war on terror. Well, what is happening in Darfur is part of the Al Queda strategy so why do leftists oppose the genocide in Darfur and oppose US efforts to defeat Al Queda?

british solutions…talk to the terrorists!

By ATWadmin On April 25th, 2007 at 8:23 am

Listened to two reports of conflict within Africa, and each time also heard the measured tones of some Labour-clone telling the wider world that, in order to achieve ‘peace’, all that had to be done was to lay down all weapons, cease all fighting, and ‘talk to the dissenters, the alleged terrorists; talk to the Islamic Courts regime in Somalia, talk to the war-lords in the Congo; talk, talk, talk, and then give in to their demands’.

As has been so successfully demonstrated in Northern Ireland, all that a Government has to do in order to achieve this ephemeral ‘peace’ is to allow murderers, and reprentatives of murderers, to walk into government, get their killing friends freed, set themselves up as so-called ‘democrats’ and the cash and perks come rolling in! True, the bombings and killings have largely ceased, but the low-level intimidation, criminality and thuggery have remained, and in many quarters increased!

The terrorists have demonstrated beyond fact that their ways work, especially when dealing with a bunch of lily-livered sell-outs like Blair, Mandelson, Hain et al! The IRA have won, despite the loud calls of triumph from our Socialist masters! Their star female bomber is scheduled to take up her appointment on the Policing board of the PSNI; and a more grotesque appointment cannot be imagined! But one cannot really blame the IRA for revelling in their triumphs, as we should be aiming our gaze firmly at the promoters of these sad decisions to talk, to negotiate, to prevaricate and to surrender!

Apropos those last words, where and who said something along the lines of <b> Never, Never, Never,</b>, or was that just like so much hot air dispersing into the winds?

Mugabe: The final chapter?

By ATWadmin On March 14th, 2007 at 12:52 am

I was interested to read David Blair’s commentary piece in the online Telegraph, re the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe.

"…there are growing signs that Mr Mugabe is finally losing his grip.

Never in its 44 year history has Zanu-PF been as divided as it is today. Mr Mugabe appears to be in a state of open warfare with both his party’s main factions. In the past, Mr Mugabe would always have been clever enough to ally with one faction against the other. At the very least, he would have turned them against one another and kept each permanently off-balance. But today, both groups appear to have united against him.

Two factors are eroding Mr Mugabe’s position every day. First, he is 83 and his mental powers are visibly failing. While physically fit, the edge has come off Mr Mugabe’s mind.

Second, Zimbabwe’s economy is in meltdown. At first, this national calamity did not threaten his grip on power. …. But the crisis is reaching such proportions that the Zimbabwean state itself is disintegrating. Mr Mugabe can no longer afford to pay his security forces.

The police and the army rank-and-file are just as desperate as everyone else. This combination of discontent within and without Zanu-PF is unprecedented. Mr Mugabe’s final days may be upon us."


The cessation of Robert Mugabe’s reign of terror is obviously to be welcomed, at its most basic level. But the concern now is, how will this play out, and what will his government be replaced with? When a state’s economy collapses to such a stage that the government cannot even pay its own army or security services, then I reckon that anarchy, military coups and even full-scale civil war may be on the cards.

There is a body of opinion that says that to some extent, "we" (ie, "the West" and in particular the UK) are to blame for allowing Zimbabwe to degenerate this far. Some say that we ought to have intervened militarily in order to help the people of Zimbabwe. I readily admit that I haven’t followed this debate in detail, so I won’t offer an opinion of my own, but invite your comments. What do you think?



Out of Bleedin’ Africa!

By ATWadmin On March 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

gibraltar.jpgHave a good look at this picture.  It is taken from the small Spanish town of Tarifa and has a view across the Strait of Gibraltar to Morocco.  On the Moroccan side you can clearly see the peak of Jebel Musa (all 2761ft of it).  This marks the narrowest point of the Mediterranean Sea.  Between Spain and Morocco the distance is just 9.2 miles.  Although the Strait look fairly tranquil, the currents that pass through it are legendary and, rightly or wrongly, have acted as a formidable barrier to migrants attempting to cross in rickety boats from Africa.  The beach at Tarifa is littered with bits of rowing boats and other makeshift vessels.

Actually, Spain and Morocco aren’t even separated by water.  If you look at the Moroccan coast to the left of Jebel Musa you see the land gradually flatten out to almost sea level.  Here it is not Morocco at all, but Spain itself.  The enclave of Ceuta has been Spanish sovereign territory since 1580 (separated from the mainland by water; attached to a foreign country by land; legitimate in international law.  Sound familiar to Irish republicans?).  Walking around Ceuta you know you are part of Africa only by geography.  Culturally, politically and economically, Ceuta is very much European.

In recent years the enclave has been besieged by African migrants trying to get a foothold in European territory.  It has seen mass groups of Malians, Mauritanians, Algerians and Nigerians attempting to scale the barbed wire frontier that marks the border between Ceuta and Morocco.  A constant headache for the Spanish government, Madrid has even asked the Moroccan government to take a harder line – with reasonable success – with people attempting to cross into this EU gateway illegally.  Although the Senegalese migration to the Canaries is more frequently in the spotlight, there is no doubt that, in proportion to its size and convenient location, Ceuta has a far greater problem.

So why on God’s green earth is the Spanish government contemplating – even for a nanosecond – a tunnel under the Strait linking Africa with Europe?  Does the government there not realise any tunnel will be a conduit for every Tom, Dick, Nubian and Gerewol keen to seek the European promised land?  Has the lesson of the Channel Tunnel not hit home in Spain’s corridors of power?  The Spanish had an idea for a bridge back in 1988, but it was roundly opposed by the Spanish people.  So what’s changed?  I can’t see the local populace being particularly enamoured with any linkage to Africa.  Is this an exercise in government egotism?  I think so.

At a time when Spain, Italy and Malta are suffering mass illegal immigration, there is no need to give the fortune seekers of this benighted continent any easier access to EU milk and honey.  Aside from the 10-mile stretch of barbed wire on the Ceutan frontier (and a similar length in Mellila), the only border between Europe and Africa is water. It should definitely stay that way!!