Tag Archives: Robert Mugabe

FEAR BEHIND CHURCH ATTACK

Photo: EPA ; AP
Photo: EPA ; AP

The killing of nine people in a Charleston church last week and the election result in Denmark seemingly have little in common.   But at the root of both is fear.

The 21-year-old white male who shot dead nine African-Americans wore two badges on his jacket.   They were the Rhodesian flag and the South African flag of the old apartheid regime.   TV reporters were quick to say these flags represented racism and that Dylaan Roof identified with these countries because he, too, is racist.

As usual, there was very little depth shown by reporters.   It’s just not as simple as they made it out to be.

Rhodesia and South Africa were the last two nations on the African continent to be ruled by whites, people of European descent who had colonized Africa in previous generations.   During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the European powers were rapidly dismantling their colonial empires.   The ruling whites of Southern Rhodesia, rather than have black majority rule forced upon them, declared themselves independent of Great Britain, something that had not happened since 1776.

Why did they do this?   Out of fear, fear of what would happen if the whites handed over to the majority African population.

This fear was not unfounded.   They had seen what happened when countries to the north of them got independence.

Tribalism, violent upheavals and economic collapse were quite normal in the years following independence.   In 1961, the whites of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), at the time in a federation with Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, had been instrumental in saving thousands of people from the Congo who had fled the country after Belgium pulled out.   Chaos and confusion were commonplace in Africa at the time. The whites at the southern end of the continent did not want the same fate to befall them.

In neighboring South Africa, apartheid also had fear at its root.   The white minority imposed segregation to protect themselves from violent crime, murder, and rapes, all of which have increased dramatically since the end of apartheid and the introduction of majority rule.   There was a great deal wrong with apartheid, but post-apartheid South Africa also has serious problems with little hope for improvement.

Which brings us to last week’s Danish election.

Scandinavia has been the last bastion of social democracy, with widely admired societies that have inspired leftist parties around the world.

But these days, social democracy in Nordic countries is in crisis.   The defeat of Denmark’s ruling social democrat party, led by Helle Thorning-Schmidt, means that for the first time in seventy years, Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a social democrat government in power.   Even there, it’s doubtful it will survive long.

Their decline has been accompanied by a surge in support for anti-immigration, eurosceptic parties.   “Should the Danish People’s party — which came second, nearly doubling its support from the previous vote in 2011 — join a centre-right government, three of the four large Nordic countries would have such a group in power (Finland and Norway being the others),” the Financial Times reports on its website.   After decades of rule by parties of the left, this is a dramatic change.

“There is a familiar progression in the way that the DPP, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and Norway’s Progress party have hollowed out the establishment parties.   As with the DPP, they have started by stealing voters from the centre-left — the working class, the elderly — before taking them from the centre-right.

“It’s a worry and it’s a wake-up call,” says Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister.”   (ft.com)

What’s behind the swing to the anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Fear.   The same fear that motivated the whites of Rhodesia and South Africa.   And the same fear that was behind the church shooting in Charleston.   This is not to suggest that the Danes, the Rhodesians or the South Africans would have been in agreement with Dylaan Roof’s actions.   It is simply that there is a commonality here – and that common denominator is fear.

The Danes are afraid of being overwhelmed by people of different cultures, especially Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East.   A significant percentage of people in every European country share the same fear.   They do not want to see their way of life threatened. These fears are not taken seriously by mainstream political parties, so voters are looking elsewhere.

The same fear led to Rhodesians breaking away from Britain.   Their “rebellion” lasted fourteen years, seven of which were spent at war with homegrown terrorists who wanted to take over the country. When the terrorists took over, white fears were realized when their land, jobs and money were all taken by the post-independence government of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power for over 35 years.

In South Africa, twenty years after apartheid, the country’s biggest problems are corruption, violence and life-threatening crime.   The affluent society the whites created is under increasing threat, driven by African demands for more and more at the expense of the white taxpayer.

In America, too, many whites fear for the future as they head rapidly toward minority status.   A recent announcement by the Obama Administration that instructs government agencies to enforce greater “diversity” in affluent neighborhoods will only make matters worse.

I’m writing this while we are headed back to our home on a train.   We had to change trains in Chicago.   While lining up for the second train, a young white lady next to me complained to her friends that “the Mexicans are pushing in ahead of us.”   A minor incident like this can trigger off a racial confrontation.   This time it was avoided.

The mad, multicultural mayhem created by the ruling intellectual elites is increasingly being found wanting throughout the western world.

We should expect more incidents like the one in Charleston and more election results similar to Denmark.   It could be the start of a white backlash against enforced multiculturalism.   Politicians should take note on both sides of the Atlantic.

A century ago, the world was dominated by Europeans and people of European descent.   Since World War II this has changed dramatically.   Today, only a handful of countries are still run by Caucasians; and, based on demographic trends, all of those will have a majority non-white population within the lifetimes of those now living.

When the dominant culture of a country changes, great upheaval can take place.   Rhodesia is the best most recent example of this.

Dylaan Roof, at 21, was not even born when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.   He may have worn the Rhodesian flag but was ignorant of Rhodesia’s realities.   Race relations were generally quite good in Rhodesia.   The “white” army was 82% black.  If Dylaan Roof had shot nine black Africans in Rhodesia, he would have been tried, sentenced and hanged within a few months.   I remember clearly a young white male who killed a black cab driver and was hanged, if I remember correctly, within 90 days of his sentencing.

The world’s media may have judged Rhodesia a racist society.   In the same way, it now judges South Carolina as seriously wanting in this regard.   But there has been an outpouring of love and support from different ethnic groups since the mass shooting in church.   The Governor of the state, Nikki Haley, has called for the old confederate flag to be taken down from the Capitol building in Columbia, the state capital.

Just as the world’s media stirred up feelings against Rhodesia and South Africa, it will do so against South Carolina.

Watching CNN on Monday morning, I was shocked at how much time was devoted to a one-sided discussion on the future of the “Stars and Bars,” the old Confederate flag.

What Dylaan Roof did was inexcusable and should be roundly condemned.   But he was just one man and a young man, at that.   His actions will not inspire the majority to replicate his act.   But the fears he expressed about the direction America is headed should be openly discussed.   The flag is not the issue.

MANDELA AND THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL

Mandela and Mugabe

The massive global adulation given to Nelson Mandela in the days following his death shows how much we are all influenced by the media and how brainwashed we have all become by political correctness.  George Orwell’s classic “1984” has come true – there seem to be few left who can think for themselves and not practice “new speak.”  Orwell preceded political correctness by over two decades, but saw it coming.

As I wrote Friday, most whites in South Africa think that Mandela helped avoid a bloodbath during and after the handover from white to black rule in 1994.

Now, having said that, let’s look at some other facts:

  1. While in office, Mandela turned a blind eye to the excesses of other African presidents.  South Africa’s geographic position and its economic might can be used to achieve political goals in the region.  The white National Party government of John Vorster brought down white-ruled Rhodesia.  Mandela and the African National Congress could easily have brought down Robert Mugabe, but neither he nor his successors have done so.  He even met with Mugabe and other despots and befriended them.
  2. Mandela was guilty of 156 acts of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of many people.  He pleaded guilty to these acts – there is no doubt he authorized them.  A century ago he would have been hanged for terrorism and never heard of again.
  3. In dismantling the white government, the result has been a 1,100% increase in the murder rate, the deaths of an estimated 68,000 whites including over 4,000 farmers, and a rise in crime that has everybody fearful.  When I first visited South Africa in 1974, people I stayed with did not lock their doors.  Now, they have bars on windows, high fences, electronic alarms, dogs and everything they can buy to protect them in their own homes.  It should also be remembered that there have been far more black deaths.  Black on black violence is a far greater problem and often goes unrecorded.
  4. Note the following list of Mandela’s accomplishments sent from a South African friend.  “The fruits of his takeover are mammoth unemployment; increased tension and conflict between the nine different black nations (each composed of several tribes); debasement of the currency by 700%; 8+ million illegal refugees from other African countries; an exploding crime rate; legalization of pornography, abortion, homosexual marriages, etc., which were previously banned by the white government … massive abuse of women and rape; break-down of law and order, and violence against farmers as happened in Rhodesia.”   All of these things would likely have happened with any African president, but there were clearly negative consequences when white rule ended, as there were everywhere else on the continent.

Additionally, there is great uncertainty about the future and has been for years.  If Mandela stopped a wholesale massacre of the whites, his successors may not be able to do so for long.  At some point, South Africa is likely to force land redistribution on the country in a bigger way, just as in Zimbabwe – more white farmers will lose their land.  When Zimbabwe did that, there were serious food shortages, eventually made up by the importation of food from South Africa.  When South Africa’s food production drops by 90% as a result of similar land thefts, where will the food come from to feed the people?   Whites are commercial farmers, while the native African population practice subsistence farming, growing only enough for their own needs.

The Wider Story

We need to understand the wider story here.

When I was in school, almost all of Africa was ruled by European powers, mostly the British and the French.  Only Ethiopia and Liberia were never colonized by Europeans, with the result they were the poorest and most backward countries on the continent.  That fact alone should make people take a second look at the colonial period.

The British Empire in Africa alone was bigger than the United States.  Every colony and the dominion known as the Union of South Africa, were food exporters.  Now, after five decades of independence, they are almost all food importers.

This was part of the blessings promised to the descendants of the patriarch Joseph, whose two sons were to “become a people” (the United States) and a “multitude of nations” (the British Empire and Commonwealth).  (Genesis 48:19)  The name Joseph means “God increases,” a promise of physical prosperity to the patriarch and his descendants.

Other blessings that followed these white settlers were basic freedoms like freedom of religion and freedom of the press; the Bible itself; property rights; relatively efficient and responsive administration; the rule of law and an independent judiciary; plus a political system copied on Great Britain, which gave the various colonies the stability they needed to prosper.  While these colonies existed they were a part of the western world, a major plus for the United States, which took over world leadership after World War II.

Decolonization ended all this.

It was followed by political instability, serious economic decline, a massive lowering of living standards for the ordinary people and a freefall in food production.  But nobody in the West could say anything, cowed by political correctness.

Note what Ghanaian author George Ayittey has to say on this:  “My criticisms of African governments were greeted with suspicion in North America and western Europe.  I quickly learned that, in the United States, African leaders, especially those from black Africa, were viewed almost as saints.  Blacks, having been enslaved and colonized in the past, could do no wrong.  Criticizing African leaders, especially in the North American media, is often regarded as ‘blaming the victim.’  To do so is not “politically correct.””  (Africa Betrayed, by George Ayittey, 1992, page xvi)  Do you see now why you’re not hearing anything negative about Nelson Mandela?

Political Correctness continues to this day.  Nelson Mandela is the hero of the western, progressive, left-wing elite.  No one from the present US Administration attended Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral.  No American president, either, attended Churchill’s funeral – four will be present at Mandela’s.  Conservative Churchill was a relic of the Victorian age to them; Mandela was the future, symbol of the new multicultural ‘rainbow’ world dreamt of by the Fabians, John Lennon, JFK, Lenin and other influential men and organizations.   Their dream is of one world government, where all races and all religions blend into one.

Of course, without Churchill, we would all be goose-stepping and speaking German.   Hitler was the greatest racist of all – the Africans would have had no chance if he had conquered their continent.  Churchill was the great imperialist – he inspired the peoples of the British Empire to fight as one against the Third Reich.  The Empire no longer exists – what will Britain do next time there is a major threat to world peace from the continent of Europe or anywhere else?

What will Africa do if western countries can no longer send them aid?  Having kicked out the white farmers, they will have serious food shortages.

Those of us who have lived in Africa have lived through the fall of the British Empire.   South Africa was the last part to fall, in 1994, to the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

This is a major reversal for the modern Israelites, but they cannot see it for what it is.  Political correctness and the cult of celebrity have, rather, made it all seem progressive for Africa and for the world.

But it’s the slow fulfillment of the curses to come upon Israel, prophesied in Deuteronomy chapter 28, for their rejection of God.  “You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes … the alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower.”  (verses 30 & 43)

Africa has gone out from under Israelite domination.  So has Asia.  All that’s left  are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some north-west European nations – and they are all well down the road that will lead them to the same gentile domination that has befallen Africa!

MANDELA — A BRIGHT LIGHT ON A DARK CONTINENT

nelson-mandela-on-july-17

The news of the death of the former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, came as I was preparing to write an article on Central Africa.  This month marks the 50th anniversary of the dissolution of the Central African Federation, a short-lived experiment in multiculturalism that brought incredible development to the center of the continent in a short period of time.  The federation was more formally known as the “Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland.”  Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) were the three constituent parts.

When you visit any of these countries today, you will find the main roads were built at this time, as was Kariba Dam.  The federation was largely financed by the white settlers in Southern Rhodesia, who had made their country an African success story.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say on the origins of the federation.  “After World War II, the growth of secondary industries and greatly increased white immigration in Southern Rhodesia, compounded by the copper boom in Northern Rhodesia, led white political leaders and industrialists to urge even more strongly the advantages of an amalgamated territory that would provide larger markets and be able to draw more freely on black labor, especially in Nyasaland.”

Apart from the economic arguments, there were also political reasons for federation.   In 1948, the Nationalist Party came to power in South Africa, then a British dominion like Canada and Australia.  The new government introduced separate development (apartheid), the strict separation of the races.  Britain was concerned about losing influence in the region as the Nationalists were generally anti-British – some had been pro-Nazi during World War II.  The British also wanted to show there was an alternative to separate development.

The federation brought together two British colonies, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, together with the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia, a territory that had never been ruled directly from London.  Britain’s hope was to show that a multiracial state based on cooperation between the races was far better than the neighboring South African model.  The first Prime Minister of the Federation was Sir Godfrey Huggins, earlier the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.  When he stepped down in 1956, he was the longest serving prime minister in the history of the British Commonwealth.

However, the federation made the whites in Southern Rhodesia richer and more influential.  Black African nationalists stirred up sentiment against it.  The Colonial Office in London, always sympathetic to African nationalist demands, decided to disband the union, giving both Malawi and Zambia independence in 1964.  The whites in Southern Rhodesia voted to disassociate themselves from Britain (UDI), but 15 years later were forced to hand over power.

Economically, there is no doubt that the federation was a good thing and achieved a great deal.  This was the decade of the greatest economic expansion in Central Africa.

In stark contrast, independence led to dictatorship, socialism and economic decline.

All three countries had the same president for three decades.  Malawi’s Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda led his country from independence until 1994; Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda from independence until 1991; Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, from independence in 1980 right up until the present.  The Westminster style parliamentary systems that the British had in place in the three territories during the colonial era did not survive independence, each country sliding into dictatorship.  Zambia and Zimbabwe also embraced socialism.  Zambia has since seen the light, but Zimbabwe remains in darkness.

The multicultural ideal was dead in Central Africa and the three component parts have suffered because of it.

It was not to be realized again until the end of apartheid and the first black African government in South Africa, led by Nelson Mandela.  Mr. Mandela only served one term, previously unheard of in Africa.  As a leader, he was a light on the Dark Continent, standing out over all other post-colonial rulers.  “What is the future of South Africa?” asked former US Secretary of State James Baker on CBS this morning.  He added:  “I think a lot of the groundwork has been laid by Nelson Mandela.”

It is misleading to say, as was said on CBS this morning, that “Mandela spent 27 years in prison because he fought against apartheid.”  Many people opposed apartheid but did not go to prison.  Helen Suzman, a prominent member of parliament, comes first to mind.  Mr. Mandela was, in fact, imprisoned for acts of sabotage.  Today he would be called a terrorist.  Violently opposed to apartheid, many whites now see him as the one who saved them and the country from a bloodbath when the white minority handed over power.  He was the only one who could pull the transition off successfully.  For this, South Africans of all races are mostly grateful.

For a long time, many whites have expressed fears for their future in the post-Mandela era.

The whites have the skills the country needs for further prosperity.  They also pay most of the taxes, without which social programs to help the poorest members of society would not be possible.  The countries of the Central African Federation learned the hard way the negative consequences of driving the whites out.  Hopefully, South Africa will not make the same mistake and Mandela’s “rainbow nation,” a multicultural country made up of various races, will succeed.

Thinking has changed, even in the West.  Socialists in England in the 1950’s were advocates of decolonization.  One point repeatedly made was that, in Northern Rhodesia, whites were paid on average seven times what black Africans were paid;  today, after five decades of independence, the ratio is 28 to 1.  Whites no longer want to settle in central Africa.  They would rather go out on contracts and want big money to take what they consider are big risks, hence the greater pay differential.  If South Africa can keep the white settlers, the country will continue to prosper.

Interestingly, Zambia is now encouraging white farmers to settle, granting them 99 -year leases on land.  Food production doubled with the first hundred farmers, bringing down food prices and strengthening the currency.  Zambia benefitted from Zimbabwe’s expropriation of white farmland.

The handover to majority rule in South Africa took place in 1994.  By that time, the country had had the opportunity to see the disaster that had befallen many nations to the north.  Whereas Zimbabwe’s post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, reverted to his radical revolutionary agenda after gaining power, Mandela gave an assurance right at the beginning that South Africa would be a democracy and would have a free enterprise system.  So far, it’s worked.

We will soon know whether it will continue to work in the post-Mandela era.

AFRICAN DESPOTS BEHIND THE NEWS

yahya-jammeh       Isaias-Afewerki_244x183

At first glance, Eritrea and Gambia may not have much in common but both were in the news yesterday.  Separated by 3,000 miles, both are small countries that rarely get any attention.

Yesterday, Gambia announced its departure from the Commonwealth, whose leaders will be meeting next month in Sri Lanka for their bi-annual Heads of Government Meeting.  Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, will be representing his mother, who is the Head of the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth members are required to be democracies and to uphold certain standards of liberty and the rule of law.  Many members throughout the decades have flouted these requirements, but eventually the organization tries to do something.  A decade ago Zimbabwe left, anticipating censure.  Now it’s the turn of Gambia.

Like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Gambia’s president is in power for life.  Opponents usually end up dead, one way or another.  Yahya Abdul-Azziz Jemus Junkung Jammeh seized power in a military coup in 1996, simply by being the first soldier to enter the presidential palace when the country’s first president was overthrown after over 30 years in power.  He heads the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction.

His human rights record is the reason he has left the organization, though he won’t admit that.  He is claiming that the Commonwealth is “neo-colonialist;” the reality is that he is a ruthless dictator who goes against everything the organization stands for.

Eritrea is not a member of the Commonwealth, having been colonized by the Italians.   After World War II, the UN gave the country to Ethiopia.  In time, this inspired a rebellion to seek independence.  Isaias Afewerki has been president of the country since it won its independence from Ethiopia in 1993.  Eritrea has never held an election.

Both Gambia and Eritrea are dictatorships, not unusual in post-independence Africa.   Dictators, by their very nature, like to control everything.  They also take 99% of the national wealth to support their lavish lifestyle.  The people generally struggle to eke out a meager existence on less than a dollar a day.

So it’s no wonder that a boatload of mainly Eritreans was heading for Italy a couple of days ago, 500 people seeking refugee status.  Unfortunately, the boat sank less than a mile from shore and about 300 of these pathetic refugees drowned.  This included a few children, all proudly wearing new shoes in anticipation of a better life in a new country.

Sadly, Gambia and Eritrea are typical of most of Africa, whose leaders bring to mind the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 20.  “You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those that are great exercise authority over them.  Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.”  (verses 25 & 26)

The president of Eritrea is named after the prophet Isaiah.  Ironically, it’s Isaiah who wrote of a time to come when leaders like President Afewerki will no longer be allowed to rule.  Jesus Christ is returning to establish His Kingdom.  He will “order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever.”  (Isaiah 9:7)

There will be no more despots lording it over their people, taking all the wealth for themselves, driving their own people to flee to faraway lands.

“But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree, And no one shall make them afraid.”  (Micah 4:4).

Let us all pray “Thy Kingdom Come.”  (Matt 6:10)