Thursday, 28 July 2011




Amnesty reports on massive displacement of Ivory Coast citizens and routine atrocities committed by militias loyal to the new government led by the Muslim president Ouattara.

Of course the word "Muslim" is scarcely mentioned at all, only once in fact and that to portray the Muslims as victims by recounting an incident in which militias loyal to the former government targeted people with Muslim-sounding names.

It's worth paying some attention to Ivory Coast because it exhibits strong parallels to what is happening in western Europe.

Initially, it was a successful country with a booming economy, an oasis of peace and stability in west Africa. Its population was predominantly Christian.

Because of this it attracted people from countries that were less successful, less prosperous, less peaceful and less stable. These people were predominantly Muslim.

Muslim migration and breeding began to change the demographic balance of the country significantly. Indigenous Ivorians began to take note of this and express unease about it. They felt that the incomers were exploiting their country, had no deep-seated sense of loyalty to it and that their ever-growing presence portended bad things for the future. Some politicians responded to these popular concerns by articulating the concept of "Ivoirité" (Ivorianess).

As the Muslim presence grew, so did their political demands. When a significant Muslim presidential contender (Ouattara) emerged from this immigrant Muslim milieu, the constitution was changed to bar presidential candidates whose parents had not been born in Ivory Coast. This provoked a civil war that lasted for almost ten years, coming to an end only this year with a western-assisted Muslim victory and the installation of Ouattara as president.

So, in other words, the people who had predicted that the increasing demographic presence of Muslims would lead to bad things in future were completely correct. It led to the end of stable democratic rule, a civil war, mass killings, rapes, torture and the displacement and dispossession of the indigenous population.

In view of the transformation of Ivory Coast from a stable, prosperous, successful country into just another African cesspit, do the multicultists now acknowledge the failure of their ideology? Of course not. Instead they claim the exact opposite. The indigenous Ivorians had their country destroyed because they weren't multicultural enough.

Here's what Amnesty International's latest report has to say about it:
Much of the insecurity at local level, particularly within and around villages and towns in western Côte d’Ivoire, relates to conflicts about access to and control of land for agriculture. For several decades, people from the north of Côte d’Ivoire and from neighbouring countries such as Burkina Faso migrated to the rich agricultural areas located in the west of the country. Many were able to secure access to their own lands and began to develop their own coffee and cocoa plantations.

Tensions around land have always remained high but they were seriously exacerbated by the doctrine of "Ivoirité", developed in the mid-1990s by a number of intellectuals close to the then President of the country, Henri Konan Bédié. This theory pitted "genuine" Ivorians (termed “autochtone” or indigenous) against “nonindigenous” or “allogène” populations, commonly known as Dioulas. Depending on the circumstances, the term Dioula is used to describe anyone with a Muslim name, or anyone coming from the north of Côte d'Ivoire or other countries in the sub-region (such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Senegal).

So because the Ivorians refused to smilingly hand over their traditional living space to disloyal aliens, they caused the bad things to happen. Because they felt misgivings about the way their country was being transformed, and because politicans articulated those concerns, they brought ruin upon themselves.

So if only you refuse to discuss the fact that your country is being demographically conquered by aliens, or refuse even to notice it, everything will be fine. If you insist on talking about the bad things that might result from this change, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you bear moral responsibility for your own annihilation and displacement.

Multiculturalism is an ideology that cannot be refuted, thus proving it is essentially religious and non-scientific in character. When reality fails to fit the doctrine, it can only be because of sin. When bad things occur, they must therefore be a punishment for sin. Thus the ruined are responsible for their own ruin.

0 comments:

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews