The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Sources Filter?
townhall Vdare
Nothing found
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
Zimbabwe

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

The nation of Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, is reaping the fruits of its liberation from the travails of white supremacy by that hero of the people, Robert Mugabe, in 1980.

The metaphor of “reaping the fruits” is both ironic and a mere figure of speech, of course. The literal truth is there are no fruits to reap. The metaphorical fruit that Zimbabwe is reaping is mass starvation.

Zimbabwe faces starvation mainly because the Mugabe regime is confiscating the land of the white farmers who once fed not only their own country but also most of Africa. Hundreds of white farmers have had their lands stolen by mobs of black thugs instigated by the government.

Often the stolen land winds up in the hands of Mr. Mugabe’s cronies; even more often, it ceases to produce any food at all as soon as the white owners who knew how to run the farms are kicked out (if they’re lucky; not a few have simply been slaughtered, as have many of their black workers).

State Department African Affairs official Mark Bellamy says that food shortages in Zimbabwe in the next six months could leave as many as five million people facing starvation. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warns that more than 94 percent of Zimbabwean farmers lack the cereal seeds to plant crops for the next growing season. There’s virtually no domestically produced food now, and there’s little prospect of any in the near future either.

As for foreign food, private relief organizations say Mr. Mugabe directs food into the hands of his own supporters, while opposition leaders note that “Food has been politicized, [Tribal ] chiefs have been politicized. All the food distribution system is in the hands of [government party ] officials.”

But never fear. The U.S. government has a plan to save Zimbabwe from the consequences of its own folly. As the Washington Timesreported this week,

“The United States is considering delivering aid directly to millions of starving Zimbabweans in defiance of President Robert Mugabe”,

according to State Department officials. ["U.S. eyes end run around Mugabe", By David R. Sands, Washington Times, November 2, 2002]

That may sound swell to some people, but in fact it’s merely a covert aid program to bail the African dictator out of the famine his own policies have created.

The Bush administration cannot even pretend to like the Mugabe regime, since it has bludgeoned not only whites but also any black opponents who might pop up. Mr. Mugabe’s tame legislature has passed laws curtailing press freedom, political opposition and rights of assembly, even as the government also stole the land and engineered murderous mobs to enforce its will. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner in the State Department told the Times that the United States refuses to recognize Mr. Mugabe as the “democratically legitimate leader of his country” because of the obvious fakery of the last election.

And because the administration can’t pretend to approve of the Mugabe tyranny, it can’t give aid to it in the normal, open way. It therefore has to give the aid covertly and indirectly.

But the result will be the same, regardless of how the aid is given.

The result will be the preservation of the Mugabe regime from the natural consequences of the economic and human destruction its own policies have spawned .

“There is a remedy in human nature against tyranny,” Samuel Johnson said, “that will keep us safe under every form of government.”

The remedy Dr. Johnson had in mind was assassination, revolution, coup d’etat, etc.—but for the natural remedy to be applied, the disease of tyranny has to be present.

By contriving to sneak food to the people and circumvent the Mugabe government, the administration would be relieving the misery that alone can brew the “remedy” of which Dr. Johnson spoke.

Why would anyone wish to revolt in Zimbabwe when tyranny is no threat to the full dinner table?

Mr. Bellamy of the State Department even went so far as to say that Mr. Mugabe is “holding his people hostage the way Saddam Hussein is holding his people hostage.” Then why didn’t the government arrest Mr. Mugabe when he showed up at the United Nations in New York in September to defend his genocidal policies?

The Bush administration is not serious about getting rid of the Mugabe regime, no matter how criminal it is. It didn’t utter a peep when Mr. Mugabe showed up in New York, and it’s barely uttered a peep about his policies for the last few years.

And if it were serious, instead of thinking up ways to correct the results of his misrule and helping his escape its natural consequences, it would be doing everything possible to help the people of Zimbabwe, white and black, give their leader a strong dose of the natural remedy that all tyrants eventually have to swallow.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Robert Mugabe was once a hero,” a Washington Post editorial sobbed about the tyrant of Zimbabwe last week, and led “his people’s struggle for independence.”

In fact Robert Mugabe was never anything but a thug and killer, leading a terrorist group that murdered Christian missionaries and their followers.

The Post, of course, thought (or claimed to think) otherwise, and for its editors and those who share their beliefs, the man whom the recent editorial accurately credits with “with transforming his country from Africa’s breadbasket into a southern Africa basket case” has turned out to be almost as much of a heartbreaker as most of its other former heroes from Lenin to the Sandinistas.

When Rhodesians in 1980 were about to vote for one of several black candidates, Ian Smith, the country’s outgoing white leader, recommended that they vote for Mr. Mugabe’s main rival and fellow terrorist, Joshua Nkomo, as the lesser of two evils.

It so happens in what passes for “democracy” in southern Africa that Mr. Mugabe’s tribal following is larger than Mr. Nkomo’s minority tribe, and black voting followed tribal lines. Mr. Mugabe won. Mr. Nkomo and his tribe then suffered far more brutal persecution from the new democracy Mr. Mugabe constructed than they had ever endured under white rule, and thanks to the adulatory stupidity of Western liberals, the terrorist regime was entrenched in power.

Today, Mr. Mugabe has confiscated white farm lands and started rounding up and imprisoning white farmers who refuse to let armed black mobs drive them off their land. The result is the “basket case” that the Post has rather belatedly discovered and a famine that threatens not only Zimbabwe itself but several other African countries that have already managed to destroy their own agricultural base and depend on food from Zimbabwe to survive.

Future results may well include the outright mass murder of white farmers and whites in general in Zimbabwe, as Mr. Mugabe has openly vowed.

Mr. Mugabe’s rationale for seizing the white land is what the Post calls “the colonial legacy that allowed fewer than 5,000 white farmers to hold 70 percent of Zimbabwe’s best farmland,” a “wrong that needs to be set right,” the paper whines.

But as it turns out, the Zimbabweans who support Mr. Mugabe and who seized the land and drove off the whites don’t get much of it. Who does get it? Mainly, Mr. Mugabe’s cronies – including his wife.

Grace Mugabe, wife of the great liberator himself, showed up last week at a farm from which the two white owners had just been evicted. “I’m taking over this farm” she declared, accompanied by the usual gang of courtiers and armed goons. “We asked her what would happen to us,” said a black farm worker who apparently had helped seize the farm. Her ladyship told him to go live by the river. The 78-year-old white man who legally owns the farm was dragged off to jail.

Mrs. Mugabe is not the only one to enjoy the fruits of Zimbabwe’s social justice. The Washington Times, which reported the story in this country, also named 35 other cronies of Mr. Mugabe who have received formerly white-owned farmland. The thuggish black “war veterans” whom Mr. Mugabe encouraged to grab the land and push out the whites (14 whites have been murdered in the process) are largely ignored.

But not all. Some “war veterans” (most are too young to have fought in the war against white rule, but that’s what they like to call themselves) actually have gotten white land, and black women to go along with it. The London Daily Telegraph reports that “hundreds of girls as young as 12 are being raped or forcibly kept as concubines in rural Zimbabwe by President Robert Mugabe’s youth militia.”

The paper cites human rights activists who have documented not only the kidnapping and rape of young women but also the torture of political dissidents by Mr. Mugabe’s supporters.

What is happening in Zimbabwe is its transformation not only into a “basket case” but also into one of those pure hellholes that were the principal contribution of communism to world civilization.

Mr. Mugabe of course has always styled himself a “Marxist,” which is why the Washington Post and its disciples drooled over him so much and for so long regarded him as a “hero” engaged in “liberation.” Part of Zimbabwe’s trouble today derives precisely from Mr. Mugabe’s Marxism, but part also comes simply from the deep racial hatred of whites and lust for racial power that, much more than a passion for “liberation,” drove so much of the black revolt against white rule in Africa.

And no little part of those troubles comes also from the sheer blindness and foolishness of the Western liberalism in which newspapers like the Washington Post are immersed.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

While a U.S. war against Iraq seems increasingly certain, the United States does nothing to stop the expropriation of white farmers in Zimbabwe by the terrorist state constructed by the country’s black president, Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabwe, it’s true, is far removed from most vital U.S. interests, but since Washington played a major role, through sanctions against Rhodesia in the 1960s and ’70s and through insistence on Rhodesia’s transition to “democracy” in 1980, in creating the current disaster, Washington ought to be playing a far larger role in stopping what may yet turn into the outright genocide of whites.

In a front-page article on the Zimbabwe crisis last week, the New York Times reports that the Mugabe regime is now in the process of forcing 2,900 white farmers—what the paper calls “the country’s most productive farmers”—off their land. Of course, the Times is also careful to point out that the land “was seized from blacks during the days of British colonial rule,” but the point is that without the white farmers, the country today, in the happy days of democracy, will be unable to feed itself. [NYT, For Zimbabwe's White Farmers, Time to Move On, By RACHEL L. SWARNS, August 4, 2002]

The United Nations projects that some 6 million Zimbabweans, half the country’s population, will face starvation. That has not deterred the Mugabe government from proceeding with encouraging mobs of blacks in attacking white farmers, throwing them off their farms, and murdering both whites and blacks who show any resistance.

Mugabe himself has repeatedly threatened to kill the whites and continues to insist they will not be compensated for the land they “stole.”

Meanwhile, it’s not the black population that is getting the land stolen—excuse me, liberated—from the whites. As the Times notes, “Prominent politicians loyal to Mr. Mugabe now control scores of fertile farms while many poor blacks are stranded on arid stretches without adequate water or sanitation.” That, too, is among the fruits of democracy in a country utterly lacking in any history of or preparation for that particular form of government.

The Zimbabwe situation has been mounting for some years now, and while Western governments have spouted and spewed about human rights violations in China, North Korea, Indonesia and the Middle East, there has been virtual silence about Zimbabwe. Great Britain has tried to get Zimbabwe to develop a “responsible” land redistribution plan but won’t support the current process, which is nothing more than grand theft. The European Union has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, which are not adequately enforced, while the Bush administration, the Timesreports, has “criticized Zimbabwe’s treatment of its farmers and diplomats … [and is] quietly pressuring officials to reconsider their stance.”

Meanwhile, the deadline for leaving their land has come and gone for Mugabe’s white victims.

There is, quite frankly, not much the United States can do at this point, other than offer refuge for the white farmers expropriated. While Mr. Bush gushes over illegal aliens who broke American laws to get here, he has nothing to offer white Zimbabweans whose dispossession is largely the direct result of the diplomacy of three U.S. administrations under Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter and their insistence that Rhodesian “white supremacy” be destroyed.

The current racial tyranny in Zimbabwe is immensely assisted by two unshaken assumptions in Western minds. One assumption is that black leadership in Africa cannot and should not be lambasted and subverted in the same way that white leadership was previously. Racial guilt, fear of black political backlash and sheer racial self-hatred by Western white elites feed this assumption.

The other assumption is that, because our elites really think that whites did steal the land from blacks in colonial days, the expropriation of whites today contains some justice, that the whites really don’t have a clear and firm right to their land. That was the premise of the New York Times story itself, as it is of the British government wheedling for a “more just” redistribution plan.

By the same logic, of course, Americans have no rights to the land on which the World Trade Center once sat, because we snookered the Indians out of Manhattan for 24 dollars worth of beads and trinkets.

As multiculturalist ideology seeps through the minds of Western elites—conservative or leftist, Republican or Laborite—that inference too will begin to bear fruit.

What really lies behind the real-life dispossession, the coming famine and the possible genocide in Zimbabwe is not just the criminal ruthlessness of Robert Mugabe or the lack of preparation for democracy of most Zimbabweans, but the sheer degeneracy of the Western white world that insisted on pushing Rhodesia down the road it is now traveling and today is too frightened, too guilt-ridden, and too weak to insist on pulling it back.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

President Bush was off to Canada last week to attend a conference of the Group of Eight leading industrial states, where problems of Africa were supposed to be high on the agenda. Presumably the president displayed more knowledge of Africa at the conference than he did of Brazil a few weeks ago when he met with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. “Do you have blacks too?” Mr. Bush asked his Brazilian counterpart, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported.(translation)

Presumably Mr. Bush does know that Africa has blacks. What he may not know is that it has whites as well, who in Zimbabwe are facing the outright expropriation of their farms and perhaps even genocide from the black government of Robert Mugabe. Just before his trip to Canada, Mr. Bush announced that the United States was coughing up some $700 million in foreign aid to help prevent AIDS in Africa over the next five years. It is doing absolutely nothing to help the whites of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Mugabe, the Zimbabwean premier, has ruled his country since it switched over, under U.S. pressure, to black majority rule in 1980. This year he got himself re-elected through blatant intimidation of the black opposition and by targeting whites in general and white farmers in particular for persecution. Inciting black mobs to seize white farms, Mr. Mugabe has succeeded mainly in bringing productive agriculture to a halt. Now the country faces famine.

Despite warnings from other nations and international organizations, Mr. Mugabe proceeded with ruinous anti-white policies. Last month he showed up in Rome, where the United Nations World Food Summit was meeting, to stick out his hand and beg for other countries to feed the country his own policies have starved. The European Union banned Mr. Mugabe from coming to Europe after he threw out a team of its election observers. No one bothered to enforce it, and Mr. Mugabe arrived in Rome anyway.

The U.S. representative at the summit denounced Mr. Mugabe as a “head of state that is tyrannical and predatory” and said forthrightly that “He is causing the crisis in Zimbabwe.” All the African despot could do was insist on his “right” to steal other people’s land:

“Zimbabwe’s land must rightly belong to Zimbabweans, that being the true test of our national sovereignty. Where previously only a handful of colonial settler farmers were undertaking commercial farming, the country now has over 260,000 farming families.”

Of course, Zimbabwe’s land did belong to Zimbabweans—white Zimbabweans—but Mr. Mugabe doesn’t consider whites to be part of the nation.

“Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy,”

he pronounced a couple of years ago,

“The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans.”

Last week, his government imposed a ban on production by the nation’s remaining 3,000 white-owned farms, and the whites who own them must give them up to the government within 45 days, under a land expropriation law passed by Mr. Mugabe’s tame parliament. The country’s agricultural output has already fallen by some 40 percent in the last year.

A UN official announced “there is precious little time” left to avoid a serious famine in Zimbabwe and called for other nations to donate more aid.

No doubt President Bush and the United States will fork up as soon as they can.

When Jean Marie Le Pen or Jorg Haider or other political figures call for reducing immigration into Europe, the international press screams for weeks and depicts them as reincarnations of Hitler. When anti-Communist ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile travels to London for a medical treatment, he gets arrested and put on trial for “human rights violations.”

But when Robert Mugabe spews anti-white hatred, threatens to murder the whites of his own country, steals their land and incites mobs to attack them, we hear not a peep. When he travels to Europe, the ban imposed on him is ignored (he’s also been banned from the United States, but he showed up in New York in February; the intrepid Mr. Bush did nothing about it), and it occurs to no one to slap the cuffs on this killer and throw him in jail so he can stand trial for the murders and crimes for which he’s responsible.

The next time Mr. Mugabe pops up in Europe or America, he should be rounded up like the common thug and terrorist he is.

Mr. Bush should invite the white residents of Zimbabwe now facing famine, dispossession and genocide to immigrate to the United States as soon as possible.

Then, even if Mr. Mugabe stays in his own country, he and his fellow Zimbabweans can enjoy forever whatever they have not managed to destroy all by themselves.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

While Americans are worrying about the cruel fate of women in Afghanistan, black dictator Robert Mugabe is planning genocide in the country that Americans some 20 years ago helped push into its present crisis. Whatever President Bush does or doesn’t do in the Middle East after the current war ends, he needs to do something in Zimbabwe now.

Those who read the back pages of the newspapers will know that for the last couple of years, Mr. Mugabe has been encouraging the murder of white farmers by roving gangs of black hooligans and the seizure of white farm lands by “squatters”—landless blacks who have decided they have a right to the land that whites “stole” from them and who have no earthly idea how to farm it or take care of it. The result has been not only the outright terrorization of the dwindling white minority in Zimbabwe but also the near-collapse of its agriculture, with famine looming in the near future.

Whites are not Mr. Mugabe’s only target, however, even though he has muttered non-too-veiled threats of outright genocide against them. He also likes to terrorize black political opponents, and recently he was pushing legislation through parliament that effectively punished any criticism of the government. Zimbabwe’s having an election in March, you see, and the new bill is part of the president’s preparation for it.

President Bush has sent an envoy to warn the Zimbabwe government about the course it’s on, and the House recently passed a bill that would offer Zimbabwe “incentives” if it backs away from repression. What exactly Mr. Bush’s diplomat “warned” Mr. Mugabe with isn’t clear. Bombing raids? International sanctions like those imposed by the United Nations and the United States on the white-controlled government that preceded Mr. Mugabe’s regime? If Mr. Mugabe is willing to court famine and economic ruin to seize white lands, sanctions probably won’t bother him much. What exactly is the United States willing to do to resist terrorism and genocide when the victims are whites?

A number of white farmers have already been murdered by government-backed black mobs when they resisted handing over their land; others have been beaten and had their crops and buildings burned, and some have simply fled—to neighboring Mozambique, where so far the government welcomes them (and where the Zimbabwe government is trying to stop them from going), and anywhere else that will let them in. As for the land they leave behind, the New York Times’ description explains why they’d leave even if they weren’t threatened with being murdered.

“Inflation in Zimbabwe is soaring, AIDS infection and unemployment are high and the country, once one of Africa’s most self-sufficient, will need food aid for hundreds of thousands of people in coming months.” [U.S. Warns Zimbabwe That Next Year's Election Must Be Fair NYT, Dec 12, (pay archive)]

The United States helped create the looming genocide in Zimbabwe in the 1960s and ’70s, when presidents from Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter enforced sanctions on the white government that declared its independence of Great Britain in 1965. In 1980, under President Carter, American diplomats sponsored and helped design the actual transition to what was quaintly called “majority rule” in Zimbabwe. Mr. Mugabe, the toast of the progressive set everywhere, has been president ever since. The United States therefore bears no small responsibility for what is happening in Zimbabwe and ought to do something to fix it.

Military invasion is probably neither possible nor desirable, but one measure we could and should take is simply to invite the persecuted whites of the country (and of South Africa) to immigrate to the United States. Instead of jabbering about amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens, instead of dredging up new hordes of refugees from Afghanistan, why not offer a homeland for people who really have something in common with America and who face destruction from a regime we helped create?

There are about 120,000 whites remaining in Zimbabwe and probably less than 6 million in South Africa, where similar problems of racial repression and terrorization are appearing as the black-controlled government botches up what was once the most economically advanced country on the continent. Whites clearly have no future in either country today, and it’s not clear that the countries do either.

Since the United States loves to boast of how it’s a “nation of immigrants” and lays out the welcome mat for everybody, wouldn’t it make sense to announce that whites who flee the repression we helped create would be especially welcome here? Wouldn’t it even make sense for the U.S. government to offer to subsidize white emigration from Zimbabwe and South Africa? And wouldn’t it be nice, for a change, to have some immigrants who actually resemble—culturally and linguistically as well as racially—the people whose country they come to join?

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

If you read the New York Times last week, you may well know all about the ethnic tensions that mar the Pacific paradise of Fiji, where the native islanders are locked in a bitter and somewhat violent conflict with Indians and other foreign newcomers. All most interesting, no doubt, and well worth the front-page attention the Times awarded the story. But what you probably don’t know about from reading the Times is that halfway around the world, a somewhat more important ethnic conflict is also about to explode — namely, the economic expropriation of and possible outright genocide against the white farmers of Zimbabwe by its demagogic black leader and his followers. For the last several months, the American press has kept this story well in its back pages, and even now barely bothers to report on it at all.

The most recent twist in the story is that Zimbabwean Prime Minister Robert Mugabe, who for months has been encouraging mobs of black marauders to seize white-owned farms in his country, has now formally announced the outright seizure of 804 white-owned farms amounting to some 5.2 million acres of land. Mugabe offers no compensation to the farmers, and banks owed debts by them will now lose some $300 million because of the seizures.

The mobs that have been attacking and seizing white land for the last few months (at least five farmers have been murdered) are led by a character known as Chenjerai Hunzvi, who has chosen to dub himself “Hitler” Hunzvi. He has met with the maximum leader himself and has yet to be bridled. Last week, good ol’ “Hitler” announced that the land about to be grabbed would be divvied up “first come, first served,” and Mugabe himself has denounced the white farmers as “enemies.”

The white land seizure, virtually all economists are predicting, will only wreck what remains of the country’s agriculture. As Reuters reported last week, “Economists predict bread shortages within six months … unless the government finds money to import an extra 100,000 tons of wheat.” Maybe Mugabe can simply steal the money like he’s now stealing the land. Certainly no one in the West would seem to be likely to object.

What the Mugabe regime is doing is probably the most blatant and brutal smashing of “human rights” in southern Africa in years, even in a subcontinent notorious for its brutality. Yet not only does the New York Times virtually ignore the story, but hardly any other American newspapers gave it any prominence, if they mentioned it at all.

Nor has the Zimbabwean land theft entered the consciousness of most American opinion commentators, right or left. Conservatives had a good deal to say about Rhodesia, as Zimbabwe was known until 1980, back when the communists were backing Mugabe’s terrorists when the government was run by whites. But in recent weeks, the right has been virtually silent about the mass violation of property rights and the looming threat of government attacks on life and liberty.

Not only have the media been silent about Zimbabwe but also the Clinton administration, the zealous guardian of human rights everywhere from Kosovo to East Timor, has had hardly a word to say about Mugabe’s onslaught. Since helping Africa — against oppressive white regimes, against AIDS, against poverty — is always high on the liberal globalist agenda, it’s a bit peculiar that there’s so much silence on the Mugabe horrors.

But the reason is really not so hard to identify. “Human rights” are fine when you’re trying to weaken such anti-communist leaders as Chile’s Gen. Augusto Pinochet or such bastions of white oligarchy as Rhodesia and South Africa in the days of white minority rule. That, you see, is the real purpose of “human rights” — not the institutionalization of genuine and reciprocal respect for the rights of all human beings, but rather the politically, ideologically and racially selective institutionalization of rights for some people but not others.

It’s therefore likely that the situation in Zimbabwe is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. So far, hardly anyone outside Zimbabwe has sent its leader any signal that either his vicious language about the whites, his attacks on land ownership or even the fact of actual murder and the not-so-subtle hints of more murder to come will instigate official American objections or United Nations intervention. That sort of thing is perfectly proper for Gen. Pinochet or Austria’s Jorg Haider, but it just doesn’t apply to pioneers of democratic and racial progress like Mugabe.

If the whites of Zimbabwe want to survive, they’d better forget about relying on the cant of “human rights” and “racial tolerance” their Western cousins love to spout, and look for help somewhere besides the nations and civilization they came from.

(Republished from TownHall by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

With thousands of black “squatters” seizing every acre of white-owned land they can squat on, with at least five white farmers butchered by black terrorists since February, with most of the white population seriously thinking about or actually trying to flee the country, and with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe doing nothing whatsoever to curtail the racist terrorism he helped set in motion and denouncing whites as the “enemies” of him and his government, the United States — that guardian of global democracy and champion of human rights everywhere — is beating a hasty advance to the rear. But never fear. The New York Times reported last week, “U.S. patience with President Robert Mugabe is fast running out.”

Is it indeed? When Serbians started picking on Kosovars last year, the United States dispatched its bombers to launch an almost genocidal air war against Serbs who had never even thought about harming the United States or any American, and President Clinton declared that “the principle we and our allies have been fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multi-ethnic, tolerant, inclusive democracy.”

It is a principle we fight for, apparently, only in some instances. It’s OK to blow white Serbians to splinters in the name of “multi-ethnic democracy,” “tolerance” and “inclusion,” especially when their government is portrayed as a right-wing dictatorship rather than the communist regime it really is. But it’s definitely not cool to bomb or even publicly denounce the black-majority utopia of Zimbabwe, where, after all, the white minority probably has no business owning land anyway or even being.

Earlier this year, when a right-of-center party that opposes immigration was about to enter a government coalition in Austria after winning sufficient votes in democratic elections, the European Union screeched and screamed about sanctions on Austria and denounced the party’s leader as a “fascist,” a “Nazi,” a “racist,” and 60 other epithets. Israel withdrew its ambassador, and the United States called its own ambassador home for “consultations” about the precipice over which civilization so dangerously teetered because a democratically elected party of the right might actually take office legally and peacefully.

But so far, both the European Union and its members, always eager to lavish support on the enemies of apartheid in South Africa, are strangely silent about the genocide being prepared against whites in Zimbabwe. President Clinton is silent about sending troops, let alone bombers, to protect human rights there. The administration, the New York Times reports, “has shown scant interest in the showdown (Mugabe) was building between Zimbabwe’s white farmers and state-sponsored black squatters.” The most the Clinton gang has done so far to keep Mugabe and his hordes from slaughtering every white man and woman they can round up is to have a couple of flunkies in the State Department take tea with the leader of the Zimbabwean opposition party.

Of course, there is no good reason why the administration should go to war with Zimbabwe over the treatment of whites by the black regime that holds power there, any more than there was any good reason to bomb Serbia or condemn Austria. But the double standard is transparent: We condemn or punish regimes if they enforce “ethnic purity” for the wrong groups (namely, whites); we ignore or minimize similar enforcement of ethnic purity against the right groups (namely, whites again).

The reason for the double standard is equally obvious. It is not just a case of ideological lopsidedness, but far more deliberate. It is a clear if not explicitly stated policy of the New World Order that white ethnic purity and hegemony are illegitimate, while non-white purity and hegemony are permissible if not mandated.

That is why we condemn white-majority nations if they even think about restricting non-white immigration that would alter their demographic balance but not non-white nations for actually persecuting whatever white minorities live in them. That is why Confederate flags are now forbidden, while Malcolm X t-shirts are permissible. That is why hate crimes against blacks or other non-whites gain presidential denunciations and headlines for weeks, while those against whites are consigned to oblivion.

What is happening is the deliberate erasure of whites — not only as the dominant ethnic group in the lands where they have historically been both dominant and the majority, but also even as tolerated minorities in places like Zimbabwe. Sooner or later, as white cultural symbols are forbidden, anti-white racial violence is ignored, and the white majority ceases to be a majority, what is happening today in Zimbabwe will begin happening here — unless white patience with their own extermination runs out a lot faster than that of the Clinton administration runs out with Mugabe.

(Republished from TownHall by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s not often these days that the American media pays attention to what’s going on in places like South Africa or Zimbabwe. Once ruled by white minority governments that enforced racial segregation, both countries are now ruled by blacks. That makes the American media happy, so there’s no particular reason to pay these two countries any further attention.

But however happy the American media might be with the way things are in South Africa and Zimbabwe, not everyone there is equally pleased. Occasionally, Americans get to hear something about this, as happened this week when the Washington Post carried a story about the forcible expropriation of land that belongs to white farmers.

The idea of expropriating — a fancy word for “stealing” — white-owned land has been kicking about in the noggins of Zimbabwe’s new rulers for some time. The chief noggin, that of Robert Mugabe (who, in what passes for Zimbabwean democracy, is apparently president for life), demanded last year a constitutional amendment that would have allowed his government to seize white-owned land without compensation. Amazingly, the amendment failed to pass — perhaps because most Zimbabweans, black as well as white, understand that if they drive out the white farmers, the whole country might well starve to death.

But Mugabe wasn’t pleased about the amendment’s defeat, and he hinted that he might just seize white land anyway. Not long after the vote, black mobs began doing just that. The New York Times, which used to shriek all over its front page about every suspected atrocity against blacks under the white government, noted the seizures calmly in its inside pages this month.

The Post gave the seizures somewhat larger play, but incredibly, ran the story under the headline “A Peaceful Invasion.” When a mob of 120 people, armed with axes and clubs, shows up at the gates of a white farm and tells the owner and his family that it’s taking their land, apparently, to The Post, that’s “peaceful.”

In fact, similar seizures have occurred all over the country — black invaders, peaceful or not, have grabbed about 650 white farms in the last month — and the government seems to do nothing about it, which is yet another factor that makes it “peaceful.”

What exactly is the legal owner supposed to do? Call the cops? But the cops will do nothing. Fight them himself? He’s a farmer, not Rambo. In the case the Post examined, he did, and could, do nothing but watch the mob take over his land, his livestock and his crops. What the new “owners” will let him and his family have — to keep, to sell, to eat — the Post doesn’t bother to report.

Of course, the land seizures in Zimbabwe are not peaceful, but compared to the outright violent assaults against white farmers by black marauders in South Africa, they are. Those assaults have become increasingly common, as the “black majority” government begins removing its democratic mask.

The rationale for the seizures is that the whites have too much land and the blacks don’t have enough. In fact, there is a good deal of inequality in the country. Almost half of Zimbabwe’s land is owned by its 70,000 whites out of a total population of 12 million. To many, blacks who want the whites’ land as well as the American media who coo over its seizure, that alone justifies confiscation.

“We want the whites to stay,” says a leader of a black mob that seized a white farm, “but it’s past time for them to share. We’ve begun to wonder what we fought for” during the civil war that led to the end of the white government.

What he and his comrades were supposedly fighting for, at least according to the glowing press accounts in the West, was “democracy,” “racial equality,” and “freedom.” Now, it turns out, they were really fighting so they could grab somebody else’s land.

What’s happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa is not confined to those countries, and it’s not just control of land that’s being changed. What is happening is a long-term revolt of the non-white world against the white domination of most of the planet that has prevailed in some respects for some 500 years. The same process is taking place in Europe and the United States as non-white immigrants and their offspring begin displacing the white majorities of those regions.

The Western world needs to pay a lot more attention to what is happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa than its slanted media want us to know. What is happening there now, to white power and white property and ultimately to white freedom, may well be the prelude to what will happen here as whites sink toward being a minority themselves in their own country.

(Republished from TownHall by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”