Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Monday, 27 June 2011
Thursday, 19 May 2011
ROY BENNETT- ADDRESS TO SA BUSINESS CLUB - 4 MAY 2011
Following the news in today's papers that MDC member, opponent of Robert Mugabe and one time white Zimbabwean farmer Roy Bennett and his family have fled to London after he and his family were the victims of repeated death threats, I have posted the text of a speech Mr, Bennett gave to the South African Business Club on May 4th, over at South of the Zambezi. It can be read by clicking here.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Mugabe and the White African
If Good men do nothing, evil will prevail
Mugabe and the White African can be downloaded from Netflix
___________________
Hat Tip Council of Conservative Citizens
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Brandon Huntley to Appeal Canadian Asylum Ruling
From News 24: The Canadian legal team of the white South African who was granted and then lost asylum status in Canada, is preparing to appeal the withdrawal of his right to remain in that country.Brandon Huntley, 32, caused a stir in Canada and South Africa in 2009 when he claimed his fear of crime against whites made him a candidate for asylum, and a government board agreed.
Huntley, who grew up in Cape Town, claimed he had been attacked seven times by black robbers and called a “white dog” and a “settler”.
A panel of the Canadian immigration board found that his fear was justified and granted him asylum in August 2009.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney appealed to the country’s federal court for a review of the decision by William Davis of the immigration and refugee board.
Pressure
Advocate Russell Kaplan, one of Huntley’s lawyers, alleged that Kenney would never have appealed the decision if not for “pressure, driven by allegations of racism” by the South African government.
Continue reading
NOTE: The "Why We are White Refugees" blog is supporting Huntley and other white refugees from South Africa and Zimbabwe.
______________________
Hat Tip Dina
Sunday, 18 April 2010
IS IT AS CLEAR AS BLACK AND WHITE?
By Son of ZimbabweOn the surface it might be thought that there could be no similarities between Gordon Brown’s politics and Robert Mugabe’s. But is that so?
Gordon Brown is doing exactly what Mugabe does; the only difference is the degree and speed of the affliction which they impose upon their populations.
While it might be unfair to attribute all these errors to Brown personally, as he is an end-point of the misdemeanours of successive politicians, he failed to see the dangers or never acknowledge them. Instead he mindlessly persisted in perpetuating this inherited political cult.
Both Brown and Mugabe have a questionable mandate to be in office.
Both are essentially concerned with their own image and hanging on to power when it is clear that their leadership capacity is extinct.
Both Brown and Mugabe are presiding over declining nations, neither man able to provide the leadership spirit to resuscitate their nations.
In the face of failure, contributed to by their own weaknesses, both threaten that unless they are retained in office the population will face worse to come.
To remain in office both attempt to increase their voter support by appeasing the least economically productive sector of the population, whilst threatening the most productive sector of the population.
Both head governments which have contrived criminal charges against opposition politicians, in Mugabe’s case Morgan Tsvangerai, Nick Griffin by Brown.
Both have bullied their populations by oppressive legislature. In this way both their populations have been slowly intimidated into passivity and inertia, and both Brown and Mugabe have succeeded in destroying their respective population’s will to resist.
Both are suppressing freedom of speech, Brown by prohibiting “anti-immigrants” speech, .Mugabe by prohibiting “anti- government” speech
Neither has appeared to be concerned about the true purpose of government which is to refrain from continuous legislative engineering and instead to reduce legislative manipulation in order to offer the population a predictable stability. Without this the sense of security, and a belief that there is full protection of person and possession, is impossible.
Mugabe abdicated the control of Zimbabwe to a cabal of corruption which effectively operates Zimbabwe to its own benefit. The financial foundation of Zimbabwe’s economy exited abroad.
Brown abdicated the control of Britain to a cabal in Europe, the traditional enemies of Britain, to the benefit of that new power. The industrial foundation of Britain’s economy exited abroad.
Brown and Mugabe have both damaged their nation’s economic power by racial engineering. As a result both populations are degrading into impoverishment. Both have diluted the white creators, their most productive work force. Mugabe did this by a forced exiling of the white creators of industry. Brown did this by a forced invasion of black immigrants diluting the previously superbly successful creators of industry, the white work-force.
Both have filled the government coffers (and the pockets of their politicians) by printing money to an unprecedented degree, in order to both hide their foundation economic errors and as a short term placation of their populations.
Mugabe’s ruthlessly printing of money caused a devaluation which will leave most of the present generation of Zimbabweans destitute.
Brown first ruthlessly taxed the population and later ruthlessly printed money (to cover an unconscionable deficit) which will leave most of the next generation of Britons destitute.
Zimbabwe is a small, land-locked country with finite resources. However each citizen’s share-holding of their country has been progressively reduced by population increase, following Mugabe’s government’s encouragement of unrestrained breeding, to further his political cause.
Britain is a small, water-locked country with finite resources. However each citizen’s share-holding of their country has been progressively reduced by population increase following Brown’s government’s encouragement of unrestrained immigration, to further his political cause.
Son of Zimbabwe
Gordon Brown is doing exactly what Mugabe does; the only difference is the degree and speed of the affliction which they impose upon their populations.
While it might be unfair to attribute all these errors to Brown personally, as he is an end-point of the misdemeanours of successive politicians, he failed to see the dangers or never acknowledge them. Instead he mindlessly persisted in perpetuating this inherited political cult.
Both Brown and Mugabe have a questionable mandate to be in office.
Both are essentially concerned with their own image and hanging on to power when it is clear that their leadership capacity is extinct.
Both Brown and Mugabe are presiding over declining nations, neither man able to provide the leadership spirit to resuscitate their nations.
In the face of failure, contributed to by their own weaknesses, both threaten that unless they are retained in office the population will face worse to come.
To remain in office both attempt to increase their voter support by appeasing the least economically productive sector of the population, whilst threatening the most productive sector of the population.
Both head governments which have contrived criminal charges against opposition politicians, in Mugabe’s case Morgan Tsvangerai, Nick Griffin by Brown.
Both have bullied their populations by oppressive legislature. In this way both their populations have been slowly intimidated into passivity and inertia, and both Brown and Mugabe have succeeded in destroying their respective population’s will to resist.
Both are suppressing freedom of speech, Brown by prohibiting “anti-immigrants” speech, .Mugabe by prohibiting “anti- government” speech
Neither has appeared to be concerned about the true purpose of government which is to refrain from continuous legislative engineering and instead to reduce legislative manipulation in order to offer the population a predictable stability. Without this the sense of security, and a belief that there is full protection of person and possession, is impossible.
Mugabe abdicated the control of Zimbabwe to a cabal of corruption which effectively operates Zimbabwe to its own benefit. The financial foundation of Zimbabwe’s economy exited abroad.
Brown abdicated the control of Britain to a cabal in Europe, the traditional enemies of Britain, to the benefit of that new power. The industrial foundation of Britain’s economy exited abroad.
Brown and Mugabe have both damaged their nation’s economic power by racial engineering. As a result both populations are degrading into impoverishment. Both have diluted the white creators, their most productive work force. Mugabe did this by a forced exiling of the white creators of industry. Brown did this by a forced invasion of black immigrants diluting the previously superbly successful creators of industry, the white work-force.
Both have filled the government coffers (and the pockets of their politicians) by printing money to an unprecedented degree, in order to both hide their foundation economic errors and as a short term placation of their populations.
Mugabe’s ruthlessly printing of money caused a devaluation which will leave most of the present generation of Zimbabweans destitute.
Brown first ruthlessly taxed the population and later ruthlessly printed money (to cover an unconscionable deficit) which will leave most of the next generation of Britons destitute.
Zimbabwe is a small, land-locked country with finite resources. However each citizen’s share-holding of their country has been progressively reduced by population increase, following Mugabe’s government’s encouragement of unrestrained breeding, to further his political cause.
Britain is a small, water-locked country with finite resources. However each citizen’s share-holding of their country has been progressively reduced by population increase following Brown’s government’s encouragement of unrestrained immigration, to further his political cause.
Son of Zimbabwe
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
A Different Way of Thinking.
By Robin HindA foundation for political strategy in South Africa is the "redistribution of land ". This is a racist tactic intending that land ownership be moved to Black-Africans from White-Africans.[i] This clearly has enormous implications to the national economy and internationally, with grotesque precedents in countries such as Zimbabwe.
Revelations about the failure of land distribution which has already occurred. The key politician in the "redistributed” is the Minister Of Rural Development and Land, Gugile Nkwinti whose confession about these “repossessions” was reported in the (Johannesburg) Times, 3 March 2010.
He said: "The Department has purchased going concerns and because they were going concerns, there was always that hope that they would continue to produce. The reality is that that has not happened.
"We have not talked about the revenue that the state has lost because farms totalling 5.9 million hectare, which were active in accruing revenue for the state, were handed over to the people. And more than 90% of those farms are now not functional. They are not productive and the state loses revenue. We cannot afford to go on like that"
Said another way, government simply had not thought of, or provided for that contingency.
This is a confession of the total absence of financial planning and control, and is a culpable defect, only revealed because the Minister does not have the insight to realise that he is exposing this gross incompetence.
He says “these farms were handed over to “the people” “– This reveals another entrenched Black-African delusionary political stance that “anyone” can run a successful farm, if given land.
A Tragic Loss. Lipton, the largest tea producer in the world, invested in a tea estates in South Africa[ii]. Four million tea bushes were exquisitely cultivated, a delight to see[iii] and a monument to White-African creative endeavour.[iv] When the threats to “repossess” the land were made Lipton simple walked away, abandoning their investment: They were not going to attempt discussion with people who appeared incapable of reason.[v]
Today the estates are entirely overgrown with bug weed, and do not produced one cup of tea. Six thousand four hundred workers lost employment, with a far larger loss of seasonal workers and secondary impoverishment.
On one occasion, after the transfer of the land to government, when it was derelict as a producer, a band appeared, dresses in Communist Red. A short-lived attempt at work on a tiny portion of the estate was soon abandoned.
Shortly after these Black-Africans held a placard demonstration saying that they had “Not Been Paid” and demanded income. They have not been seen since.
Europe, give us money, now! In much the same style, having ousted White-Africans from the productive economy of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, President, recently visited Britain in order to "encourage trade and investment with South Africa". In almost the same breath he said that he was "Worried about foreign purchases of land, and that the government would need to step in to stop these foreign purchases".
Is he unable to recognise that these foreign purchases of land are effectively the very "trade and investment" which he is seeking?
No foreign purchaser of productive farmland is going to do so unless assured of a return on investment and the security of ownership. That is what trade and investment is all about.
So the circle turns back again to the “redistribution of land” charade.
For some the penny might have finally dropped. In an ironic parallel many Black nations (but not South Africa) are now inviting skilled White-African farming professionals to re-colonise their lands, and once more take over the responsibility of productive agriculture.[vi] What are the probabilities that these, now productive, lands will be expropriated once they are “going (and profitable) concerns”?
Forcing black squares into round holes. South African Airways had, at one stage, a capable and experienced CEO in the form of the White-American, Colman Andrews. His management and long-term planning for the airline was very successful. However he was subject to a campaign of vilification (all the pointers are that this was because he was White), and eventually he decided that it was not worth the candle, and resigned
South African Airways, in its determination to have a "Black" head of the airline, then appointed Khaya Ngqula as "chief executive officer", a Black -African who had failed several times previously to run other businesses. The result was financial and operational catastrophe for the Airline. His personal assistant resigned saying that she "could not work for somebody who only worked eight hours a month". One reason was that Ngqula spent his time earning directors fees on numerous other "Boards of Directors". Since he showed no capacity for, commitment to, or conscientiousness towards managing South African Airways one can only speculate on his useful contribution to these other businesses.
Khaya Ngqula was ultimately accused of mismanagement and given “Special Leave” in February 2009. After Ngqula’s very costly dismissal Chris Smyth, a White-African, was appointed as "acting” chief executive officer. He had been CFO with Virgin Nigeria, and assisted the financial turn-around of Kenya Airways. The airline improved dramatically, successful financially and operationally. He could easily have been left in place, but once again the obsession with replacing him by a Black-African prevailed.
Smyth was replaced in March 2010 by Siza Mzimela a black woman with some experience in the small SA Airlink. She had significantly less experience than
Smyth and had inferior formal qualifications.
I want a Magic Porridge-Pot. These shenanigans reveals an attitude, seemingly general, if not universal, amongst black Africans politicians, which holds that a "going concern" it will continue to run, as if by magic, whoever owns it, or whoever is CEO. All that is necessary is to wrest it away from the previous owner/ CEO, and the benefits will continue to flow into the new owner’s coffers.
Such is the naive blindness to understanding and a lack of appreciation that "going concerns" operate successfully only because of the sustained endeavour of extraordinary capable people.
Where is responsibility? A variation of the above viewpoint is that these innocents believe that Black-Africans only have to be given a “title”, and parody the role, to summarily become capable of fulfilling that role. These puerile politicians imagine that very ordinary Black-Africans have only to be slotted into office, after which they will receive a supernatural gift, allowing them to instantly emulate the pioneering creative successes of the past, the product of highly selected and extra-ordinarily capable White-Africans.
A bleak outlook for the future. Fort Hare University was created by White-Africans in 1916, and paid for by White-Africans, in their attempt to educate Black-Africans. Graduates who owe gratitude to those White-Africans include Nelson Mandela (expelled but completed his degree at Witwatersrand) and Robert Mugabe.
Research has subsequently been conducted at Fort Hare seeking to clarify the reasons for Black-African students entering tertiary education, and the way they intended structuring their future careers.
The overwhelming attitude of the undergraduates was that by having gained admission to university they needed to do nothing further. Their perception was that, having crossed the barrier of Matriculation from school, all that was now required from them was to act and behave like "students".
Arising from this (perhaps inevitably) have been the demands of "pass one pass all". The students believed that every student should be passed automatically. The next level of demand was for free tertiary education, universal to all. To emphasise the fine points of their arguments this week, on many campuses in South Africa, the South African Student Congress went on “strike” throwing rocks and burning objects.
The National President, Mbulelo Mandlana declared that the funding must come from a new tax on companies.
Simply, they do not know that they do not know.
Robin Hind
[i] This is not the occasion to counter the over-laboured and monotonously repeated fallacy that “White- Africans stole these lands and must now return them to the ‘original owner’”. It will be addressed in later posts.
[ii] Further information:
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5055231
[iii] http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15223067
[iv] The land was rented at a nominal cost from the government, because of the high costs of developing the difficult terrain the very large investment in equipment and ongoing inputs. The great benefit was primarily to the nation, by saving import costs, and (mainly) as an employer of the local Black-Africans.
[v] Other reasons included the low productivity of Black-African workers, such that the wage bill was 85% of turnover (!), and the South Africa cost per unit tea produced was eight times higher than in Sri Lanka.
[vi] Mozambique, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Nigeria,
Revelations about the failure of land distribution which has already occurred. The key politician in the "redistributed” is the Minister Of Rural Development and Land, Gugile Nkwinti whose confession about these “repossessions” was reported in the (Johannesburg) Times, 3 March 2010.
He said: "The Department has purchased going concerns and because they were going concerns, there was always that hope that they would continue to produce. The reality is that that has not happened.
"We have not talked about the revenue that the state has lost because farms totalling 5.9 million hectare, which were active in accruing revenue for the state, were handed over to the people. And more than 90% of those farms are now not functional. They are not productive and the state loses revenue. We cannot afford to go on like that"
Said another way, government simply had not thought of, or provided for that contingency.
This is a confession of the total absence of financial planning and control, and is a culpable defect, only revealed because the Minister does not have the insight to realise that he is exposing this gross incompetence.
He says “these farms were handed over to “the people” “– This reveals another entrenched Black-African delusionary political stance that “anyone” can run a successful farm, if given land.
A Tragic Loss. Lipton, the largest tea producer in the world, invested in a tea estates in South Africa[ii]. Four million tea bushes were exquisitely cultivated, a delight to see[iii] and a monument to White-African creative endeavour.[iv] When the threats to “repossess” the land were made Lipton simple walked away, abandoning their investment: They were not going to attempt discussion with people who appeared incapable of reason.[v]
Today the estates are entirely overgrown with bug weed, and do not produced one cup of tea. Six thousand four hundred workers lost employment, with a far larger loss of seasonal workers and secondary impoverishment.
On one occasion, after the transfer of the land to government, when it was derelict as a producer, a band appeared, dresses in Communist Red. A short-lived attempt at work on a tiny portion of the estate was soon abandoned.
Shortly after these Black-Africans held a placard demonstration saying that they had “Not Been Paid” and demanded income. They have not been seen since.
Europe, give us money, now! In much the same style, having ousted White-Africans from the productive economy of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, President, recently visited Britain in order to "encourage trade and investment with South Africa". In almost the same breath he said that he was "Worried about foreign purchases of land, and that the government would need to step in to stop these foreign purchases".
Is he unable to recognise that these foreign purchases of land are effectively the very "trade and investment" which he is seeking?
No foreign purchaser of productive farmland is going to do so unless assured of a return on investment and the security of ownership. That is what trade and investment is all about.
So the circle turns back again to the “redistribution of land” charade.
For some the penny might have finally dropped. In an ironic parallel many Black nations (but not South Africa) are now inviting skilled White-African farming professionals to re-colonise their lands, and once more take over the responsibility of productive agriculture.[vi] What are the probabilities that these, now productive, lands will be expropriated once they are “going (and profitable) concerns”?
Forcing black squares into round holes. South African Airways had, at one stage, a capable and experienced CEO in the form of the White-American, Colman Andrews. His management and long-term planning for the airline was very successful. However he was subject to a campaign of vilification (all the pointers are that this was because he was White), and eventually he decided that it was not worth the candle, and resigned
South African Airways, in its determination to have a "Black" head of the airline, then appointed Khaya Ngqula as "chief executive officer", a Black -African who had failed several times previously to run other businesses. The result was financial and operational catastrophe for the Airline. His personal assistant resigned saying that she "could not work for somebody who only worked eight hours a month". One reason was that Ngqula spent his time earning directors fees on numerous other "Boards of Directors". Since he showed no capacity for, commitment to, or conscientiousness towards managing South African Airways one can only speculate on his useful contribution to these other businesses.
Khaya Ngqula was ultimately accused of mismanagement and given “Special Leave” in February 2009. After Ngqula’s very costly dismissal Chris Smyth, a White-African, was appointed as "acting” chief executive officer. He had been CFO with Virgin Nigeria, and assisted the financial turn-around of Kenya Airways. The airline improved dramatically, successful financially and operationally. He could easily have been left in place, but once again the obsession with replacing him by a Black-African prevailed.
Smyth was replaced in March 2010 by Siza Mzimela a black woman with some experience in the small SA Airlink. She had significantly less experience than
Smyth and had inferior formal qualifications.
I want a Magic Porridge-Pot. These shenanigans reveals an attitude, seemingly general, if not universal, amongst black Africans politicians, which holds that a "going concern" it will continue to run, as if by magic, whoever owns it, or whoever is CEO. All that is necessary is to wrest it away from the previous owner/ CEO, and the benefits will continue to flow into the new owner’s coffers.
Such is the naive blindness to understanding and a lack of appreciation that "going concerns" operate successfully only because of the sustained endeavour of extraordinary capable people.
Where is responsibility? A variation of the above viewpoint is that these innocents believe that Black-Africans only have to be given a “title”, and parody the role, to summarily become capable of fulfilling that role. These puerile politicians imagine that very ordinary Black-Africans have only to be slotted into office, after which they will receive a supernatural gift, allowing them to instantly emulate the pioneering creative successes of the past, the product of highly selected and extra-ordinarily capable White-Africans.
A bleak outlook for the future. Fort Hare University was created by White-Africans in 1916, and paid for by White-Africans, in their attempt to educate Black-Africans. Graduates who owe gratitude to those White-Africans include Nelson Mandela (expelled but completed his degree at Witwatersrand) and Robert Mugabe.
Research has subsequently been conducted at Fort Hare seeking to clarify the reasons for Black-African students entering tertiary education, and the way they intended structuring their future careers.
The overwhelming attitude of the undergraduates was that by having gained admission to university they needed to do nothing further. Their perception was that, having crossed the barrier of Matriculation from school, all that was now required from them was to act and behave like "students".
Arising from this (perhaps inevitably) have been the demands of "pass one pass all". The students believed that every student should be passed automatically. The next level of demand was for free tertiary education, universal to all. To emphasise the fine points of their arguments this week, on many campuses in South Africa, the South African Student Congress went on “strike” throwing rocks and burning objects.
The National President, Mbulelo Mandlana declared that the funding must come from a new tax on companies.
Simply, they do not know that they do not know.
Robin Hind
[i] This is not the occasion to counter the over-laboured and monotonously repeated fallacy that “White- Africans stole these lands and must now return them to the ‘original owner’”. It will be addressed in later posts.
[ii] Further information:
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5055231
[iii] http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15223067
[iv] The land was rented at a nominal cost from the government, because of the high costs of developing the difficult terrain the very large investment in equipment and ongoing inputs. The great benefit was primarily to the nation, by saving import costs, and (mainly) as an employer of the local Black-Africans.
[v] Other reasons included the low productivity of Black-African workers, such that the wage bill was 85% of turnover (!), and the South Africa cost per unit tea produced was eight times higher than in Sri Lanka.
[vi] Mozambique, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Nigeria,
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Beneath a savage rainbow
Limpopo, South Africa's northern most provinceFive more farm deaths
The unreported carnage continues in South Africa. At least five white have died violently in the Limpopo area alone since the beginning of February.
In the most recent incident, the third farm murder in four days, the body of 70 year old Ron Smith was found at his smallholding in the Droogekaloof area. According to reports Mr Smith was on his bed with his hands tied behind his back. A gun shot wound to the old man's knee suggested he may have been tortured prior to death.
This killing follows the gruesome murder of Belgian farmer, Etienne Cannaerts, 61, was found with his throat cut at his farm near Lephalale (Ellisras)
Farmer Paul Dunn 49
In another incident, Paul Dunn, 49, a White farm manager at Constantia Products, a citrus farm in the Letsitele district outside Tzaneen, was shot dead in his home in the early hours of Saturday morning. Mr Dunn's son, who found his body had to receive trauma counselling (News source)
This spate of killings come at a time when complaints have been made to the world cup governing body FIFA over the fact that the FIFA 2010 World Cup Stadium in Limpopo is named after Peter Mokaba considered by many to be an instigator to the widespread murders of Afrikaners.
In the early 1990s, Peter Mokaba became notorious for his slogan “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” – which calls for the killing of all whites as blacks refer to all whites as ‘boers’ and is still widely chanted by black activists countrywide (One way hate-speech rule does not stop ANC-racists from chanting the Mokaba-slogan) . Mokaba also denied the existence of HIV. (Source – Censor bugbear)
The fact that a man who called for such murders is lionised, not only within South Africa, but internationally, at a time when the very killings he called for are actually taking place is further evidence of the manner with which world brainwashed by political correctness chooses to disregard the genocide of groups to whom they have been programmed not to grant victim status.
In the most recent incident, the third farm murder in four days, the body of 70 year old Ron Smith was found at his smallholding in the Droogekaloof area. According to reports Mr Smith was on his bed with his hands tied behind his back. A gun shot wound to the old man's knee suggested he may have been tortured prior to death.
This killing follows the gruesome murder of Belgian farmer, Etienne Cannaerts, 61, was found with his throat cut at his farm near Lephalale (Ellisras)
Farmer Paul Dunn 49In another incident, Paul Dunn, 49, a White farm manager at Constantia Products, a citrus farm in the Letsitele district outside Tzaneen, was shot dead in his home in the early hours of Saturday morning. Mr Dunn's son, who found his body had to receive trauma counselling (News source)
This spate of killings come at a time when complaints have been made to the world cup governing body FIFA over the fact that the FIFA 2010 World Cup Stadium in Limpopo is named after Peter Mokaba considered by many to be an instigator to the widespread murders of Afrikaners.
In the early 1990s, Peter Mokaba became notorious for his slogan “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” – which calls for the killing of all whites as blacks refer to all whites as ‘boers’ and is still widely chanted by black activists countrywide (One way hate-speech rule does not stop ANC-racists from chanting the Mokaba-slogan) . Mokaba also denied the existence of HIV. (Source – Censor bugbear)
The fact that a man who called for such murders is lionised, not only within South Africa, but internationally, at a time when the very killings he called for are actually taking place is further evidence of the manner with which world brainwashed by political correctness chooses to disregard the genocide of groups to whom they have been programmed not to grant victim status.
-/-
90% of Black owned farms failing
In other news from South of the Zambezi, it has been reported that around 90% of all one time white owned farms redistributed to South Africa's black population have ceased to be productive, News report here. What on earth one wonders can the remaining 10% be producing, Marijuana perhaps?
Of course Zimbabwe was the prototype for the redistribution of white farms to the black population, in which respect, to see how that worked out I highly recommend that you click here to watch a video called “The last white man”.
_________________
Thanks to Dina and Mary Jane for these report
Monday, 7 December 2009
A follow up to Victoria Derbyshire - from Frank Ellis
Further to Frank Ellis's earlier open e-mail to Radio 5 presenter Victoria Derbyshire (pictured above) who is currently presenting her show from Zimbabwe, Frank has now sent a follow up e-mail to her and to the BBC Radio 5 Editor:From: Frank Ellis
To: Editor of BBC Radio 5 & Victoria Derbyshire
Date: 7th December 2009
Re: BBC Radio 5 in Zimbabwe and South Africa, Further Comments
________________________________________________
I suspect that many listeners to Victoria Derbyshire’s broadcast from Zimbabwe, apart from those who have been persecuted by Mugabe’s regime or know people who have been persecuted, will not fully understand why Zimbabwe has been brought so low by Mugabe. A visit of this kind requires that the broadcaster provides a general summary and outline of the history of Zimbabwe from independence. This would focus on Mugabe’s terror tactics against tribes that resisted his tyranny (the use of the Fifth Brigade to kill very large numbers of tribal/political rivals in Matabeleland) and his attempts to dispossess successful white farmers, the beginnings of Zimbabwe’s descent into penury and misery.
In her blog Derbyshire notes the many portraits of Mugabe at the airport. Here lies an important clue for someone who has some grasp of Marxist regimes. Ubiquitous portraits of Marxist leaders are a sure sign of a Stalinist-style personality cult such as we find in North Korea, and which was the norm throughout the former Soviet Empire. Idi Amin, the murderous buffoon, that turned Uganda into an abattoir, was another African leader that liked to see his picture all over the place. Derbyshire failed to grasp the significance of these portraits so missing an opportunity to set the scene for the listener.
Derbyshire’s observation that there was food or some food in the shops suggests that there was a time when there was not food in the shops. I wonder: what would American viewers make of a documentary about Britain in which the broadcaster pointed out that there was food in the shops? So why was there a time when there was no or little food in the shops in Zimbabwe? Did it have anything to do with Mugabe’s thugs dispossessing competent white farmers and destroying a once thriving agricultural sector? The food-in-the-shops observation invites the suspicion that food was placed there so that Derbyshire could see it and that it was part of a scam to fool naïve visitors that all was in order. This was precisely the method used by Stalin. At the very moment when millions of Ukrainian peasants were being starved to death, Western socialists visited the Soviet Union and were shown model villages full of smiling and well fed children. Duly fooled (or wanting to be fooled), these Western socialists returned home and told the world that rumours of starvation and mass death were untrue. Were Derbyshire and her retinue the victims of Mugabe’s Potemkin villages?
In the Day 2 blog Derbyshire records that they have been advised not to have loud conversations in public. Why is this so? This is surely another indicator that all is not well in Zimbabwe and that the unity government is another charade. How can the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) promote its agenda when people are advised not to have loud conversations in public? The clear implication is that the state is spying on and monitoring the people’s conversations, and that intimidation of political opponents is the norm.
Derbyshire’s conversation with Edith also betrayed a woeful grasp of what Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe. Edith related her story of how she was beaten up by Mugabe’s thugs, almost certainly because she was a member of the MDC. Derbyshire’s response is to ask that if the MDC is in government with ZANU PF, why would anyone in the MDC be beaten up? Once again, this reveals appalling ignorance of the nature of Marxist regimes. Having gained power, Mugabe and his party are not going to surrender it to rivals. Why does Derbyshire not grasp this fact? Moreover, when Edith stated that there was “no rule of law”, I got the distinct impression that Derbyshire was embarrassed and just did not know how to respond. The reason there is no rule of law in Zimbabwe is because Mugabe is a Marxist dictator who has used terror, extortion and starvation to secure and to retain power (see what happened in Matabeleland). The chances that the South African ANC will in any way ameliorate the situation in Zimbabwe are nil for the very obvious reason that the ANC is a communist organisation that approves the dispossession and murder of white farmers as well. Mugabe is free to do as he wishes, and without any constitutional checks and balances, which in any case Marxists dismiss as ploy to fool the masses, there can be no rule of law. The other striking thing about this interview with Edith was the way it was terminated so that the travel news on British roads could be broadcast. I suggest that jumping from Edith’s moving and desperate plight to the banality of road conditions in the UK was utterly incongruous and, above all, thoroughly disrespectful to Edith and her suffering. UK listeners could surely have foregone the weather and traffic conditions so that the thematic and psychological continuity of the broadcast from Zimbabwe was not violated, above all when we were hearing first hand from one of Mugabe’s victims.
The interviews with Viola and Lance who had fled Zimbabwe and were currently resident in the UK came close to giving the British listener some idea of Mugabe’s state terror. Of the three that were interviewed by Derbyshire, Lance, the radio journalist, was not fooled by Mugabe and his alliance with the MDC, dismissing it as a “charade” and “window dressing”. In the exchanges between the UK-based radio journalist Lance and the Zimbabwe-based Raymond we got some idea of the contrast between what people really thought about Mugabe and his regime (and what they said outside of the country), and, on the other hand, what people felt able to say in Zimbabwe about Mugabe. Mindful of the fact that he was in Zimbabwe, and not the safe haven of London, Raymond declared that “Nobody doubts that Mugabe is a great leader”. Here was a wonderful opportunity for Derbyshire to jump in and say something about the dispossession of white farmers, the massacres, the sham elections, Mugabe’s use of terror, (Edith comes to mind) the corruption and economic incompetence. But nothing: just silence. Raymond provided something of a clue to what happens in the heart of African darkness when he said: “We’re in an African country”. Raymond’s observation comes perilously close to conceding that what can be taken for granted in Western Europe – the rule of law and free and fair elections - cannot be taken for granted “in an African country”. Lance quite rightly dismissed the new constitution as meaningless since the real problem was not a model constitution but the refusal on the part of Mugabe’s regime to be bound by any constitution unless it suited ZANU-PF.
I did not listen to Derbyshire’s broadcast from South Africa so I cannot arrive at any firm judgement. However, I will hazard the assumption that she conspicuously failed to tackle head on the ANC’s indifference to, even its tacit approval of, the large-scale murder (genocide) of white farmers, the middle-class white flight from South Africa (why are they fleeing the rainbow paradise?), the lawlessness and general incompetence of blacks once in power. I suspect that Derbyshire preferred to highlight – or was instructed to highlight before leaving the UK – the optimistic, above all to say lots of nice things about Mandela and how the FIFA World Cup would bring everyone together. If pressed then she or her interviewees could lay any shortcomings in South Africa as being due, as in the by now exhausted phrase, to “the legacy of apartheid”. Given that blacks in the USA are still whining about the “legacy of slavery” (abolished in 1865 by whites), then the betting has to be that the “legacy of apartheid” excuse for black failure in South Africa has a very long way to run before its efficacy as a propaganda ploy to blackmail and to intimidate whites finally expires (if ever). If Derbyshire and her editors can demonstrate to me that they did indeed confront head on the ugly, black side of South Africa and what has befallen whites since 1994, I will amend my comments accordingly.
Returning to Derbyshire’s broadcasts from Zimbabwe, I consider that the sort of chat-show hostess, hey-I-care, text-me, Twitter-me approach which Derbyshire employs on BBC Radio 5 in the UK, and which works reasonably well when she tackles lightweight topics, is and was wholly inappropriate when applied to the political, psychological and economic conditions obtaining in Zimbabwe. That this was the BBC’s return after a long absence to a country ravaged by violence, murder, mind-boggling political corruption and economic incompetence surely mandated the dispatch of an acknowledged BBC heavyweight, someone who had the detailed background knowledge of how Marxist states work and someone with the necessary interrogation skills to put evasive and lying interviewees on the spot. One can only assume that the reason the BBC did not send an individual who understood the ways of communism and revolutionary violence was because no such person with the necessary expertise is employed by the BBC. Victoria Derbyshire displayed an appalling ignorance of Mugabe’s despicable regime and was way out her depth. If I had been a white farmer who had been thrown off his land and witnessed a once thriving farm’s being reduced to a wasteland in the name of some gruesome, agricultural equal opportunities experiment, a black activist in the MDC who had been beaten up (people like Edith) or a relative of someone massacred in Matabeleland, I would have felt cheated by Victoria Derbyshire’s broadcast. People who see and hear their suffering ignored, misrepresented and incompetently reported, relive the suffering. The BBC did not want to hear their screams let alone broadcast them.
__________________________In her blog Derbyshire notes the many portraits of Mugabe at the airport. Here lies an important clue for someone who has some grasp of Marxist regimes. Ubiquitous portraits of Marxist leaders are a sure sign of a Stalinist-style personality cult such as we find in North Korea, and which was the norm throughout the former Soviet Empire. Idi Amin, the murderous buffoon, that turned Uganda into an abattoir, was another African leader that liked to see his picture all over the place. Derbyshire failed to grasp the significance of these portraits so missing an opportunity to set the scene for the listener.
Derbyshire’s observation that there was food or some food in the shops suggests that there was a time when there was not food in the shops. I wonder: what would American viewers make of a documentary about Britain in which the broadcaster pointed out that there was food in the shops? So why was there a time when there was no or little food in the shops in Zimbabwe? Did it have anything to do with Mugabe’s thugs dispossessing competent white farmers and destroying a once thriving agricultural sector? The food-in-the-shops observation invites the suspicion that food was placed there so that Derbyshire could see it and that it was part of a scam to fool naïve visitors that all was in order. This was precisely the method used by Stalin. At the very moment when millions of Ukrainian peasants were being starved to death, Western socialists visited the Soviet Union and were shown model villages full of smiling and well fed children. Duly fooled (or wanting to be fooled), these Western socialists returned home and told the world that rumours of starvation and mass death were untrue. Were Derbyshire and her retinue the victims of Mugabe’s Potemkin villages?
In the Day 2 blog Derbyshire records that they have been advised not to have loud conversations in public. Why is this so? This is surely another indicator that all is not well in Zimbabwe and that the unity government is another charade. How can the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) promote its agenda when people are advised not to have loud conversations in public? The clear implication is that the state is spying on and monitoring the people’s conversations, and that intimidation of political opponents is the norm.
Derbyshire’s conversation with Edith also betrayed a woeful grasp of what Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe. Edith related her story of how she was beaten up by Mugabe’s thugs, almost certainly because she was a member of the MDC. Derbyshire’s response is to ask that if the MDC is in government with ZANU PF, why would anyone in the MDC be beaten up? Once again, this reveals appalling ignorance of the nature of Marxist regimes. Having gained power, Mugabe and his party are not going to surrender it to rivals. Why does Derbyshire not grasp this fact? Moreover, when Edith stated that there was “no rule of law”, I got the distinct impression that Derbyshire was embarrassed and just did not know how to respond. The reason there is no rule of law in Zimbabwe is because Mugabe is a Marxist dictator who has used terror, extortion and starvation to secure and to retain power (see what happened in Matabeleland). The chances that the South African ANC will in any way ameliorate the situation in Zimbabwe are nil for the very obvious reason that the ANC is a communist organisation that approves the dispossession and murder of white farmers as well. Mugabe is free to do as he wishes, and without any constitutional checks and balances, which in any case Marxists dismiss as ploy to fool the masses, there can be no rule of law. The other striking thing about this interview with Edith was the way it was terminated so that the travel news on British roads could be broadcast. I suggest that jumping from Edith’s moving and desperate plight to the banality of road conditions in the UK was utterly incongruous and, above all, thoroughly disrespectful to Edith and her suffering. UK listeners could surely have foregone the weather and traffic conditions so that the thematic and psychological continuity of the broadcast from Zimbabwe was not violated, above all when we were hearing first hand from one of Mugabe’s victims.
The interviews with Viola and Lance who had fled Zimbabwe and were currently resident in the UK came close to giving the British listener some idea of Mugabe’s state terror. Of the three that were interviewed by Derbyshire, Lance, the radio journalist, was not fooled by Mugabe and his alliance with the MDC, dismissing it as a “charade” and “window dressing”. In the exchanges between the UK-based radio journalist Lance and the Zimbabwe-based Raymond we got some idea of the contrast between what people really thought about Mugabe and his regime (and what they said outside of the country), and, on the other hand, what people felt able to say in Zimbabwe about Mugabe. Mindful of the fact that he was in Zimbabwe, and not the safe haven of London, Raymond declared that “Nobody doubts that Mugabe is a great leader”. Here was a wonderful opportunity for Derbyshire to jump in and say something about the dispossession of white farmers, the massacres, the sham elections, Mugabe’s use of terror, (Edith comes to mind) the corruption and economic incompetence. But nothing: just silence. Raymond provided something of a clue to what happens in the heart of African darkness when he said: “We’re in an African country”. Raymond’s observation comes perilously close to conceding that what can be taken for granted in Western Europe – the rule of law and free and fair elections - cannot be taken for granted “in an African country”. Lance quite rightly dismissed the new constitution as meaningless since the real problem was not a model constitution but the refusal on the part of Mugabe’s regime to be bound by any constitution unless it suited ZANU-PF.
I did not listen to Derbyshire’s broadcast from South Africa so I cannot arrive at any firm judgement. However, I will hazard the assumption that she conspicuously failed to tackle head on the ANC’s indifference to, even its tacit approval of, the large-scale murder (genocide) of white farmers, the middle-class white flight from South Africa (why are they fleeing the rainbow paradise?), the lawlessness and general incompetence of blacks once in power. I suspect that Derbyshire preferred to highlight – or was instructed to highlight before leaving the UK – the optimistic, above all to say lots of nice things about Mandela and how the FIFA World Cup would bring everyone together. If pressed then she or her interviewees could lay any shortcomings in South Africa as being due, as in the by now exhausted phrase, to “the legacy of apartheid”. Given that blacks in the USA are still whining about the “legacy of slavery” (abolished in 1865 by whites), then the betting has to be that the “legacy of apartheid” excuse for black failure in South Africa has a very long way to run before its efficacy as a propaganda ploy to blackmail and to intimidate whites finally expires (if ever). If Derbyshire and her editors can demonstrate to me that they did indeed confront head on the ugly, black side of South Africa and what has befallen whites since 1994, I will amend my comments accordingly.
Returning to Derbyshire’s broadcasts from Zimbabwe, I consider that the sort of chat-show hostess, hey-I-care, text-me, Twitter-me approach which Derbyshire employs on BBC Radio 5 in the UK, and which works reasonably well when she tackles lightweight topics, is and was wholly inappropriate when applied to the political, psychological and economic conditions obtaining in Zimbabwe. That this was the BBC’s return after a long absence to a country ravaged by violence, murder, mind-boggling political corruption and economic incompetence surely mandated the dispatch of an acknowledged BBC heavyweight, someone who had the detailed background knowledge of how Marxist states work and someone with the necessary interrogation skills to put evasive and lying interviewees on the spot. One can only assume that the reason the BBC did not send an individual who understood the ways of communism and revolutionary violence was because no such person with the necessary expertise is employed by the BBC. Victoria Derbyshire displayed an appalling ignorance of Mugabe’s despicable regime and was way out her depth. If I had been a white farmer who had been thrown off his land and witnessed a once thriving farm’s being reduced to a wasteland in the name of some gruesome, agricultural equal opportunities experiment, a black activist in the MDC who had been beaten up (people like Edith) or a relative of someone massacred in Matabeleland, I would have felt cheated by Victoria Derbyshire’s broadcast. People who see and hear their suffering ignored, misrepresented and incompetently reported, relive the suffering. The BBC did not want to hear their screams let alone broadcast them.
Click here to Read Dr. Ellis's open e-mail to Victoria Derbyshire.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
An Open e-mail to Victoria Derbyshire from Dr Frank Ellis
Radio 5 Presenter Victoria DerbyshireThe following e-mail was sent by Dr Frank Ellis to Raidio 5's Victoria Derbyshire in advance of her forthcoming visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa. Frank Ellis wrote to Ms. Derbyshire because, as he said: "Her purpose for being in Zimbabwe is to ask people in Harare how life is in that benighted country. I ask myself: is an expensive jolly courtesy of the license-fee payer really necessary in order to get an answer to that question? In SA she is going to examine the forthcoming FIFA World Cup and what it means for SA. I suspect she will be resolutely silent regarding the crime and homicide."
Here is Frank's e-mail
From: Frank Ellis
To: Victoria Derbyshire, BBC Radio 5
Date: 2nd December 2009
Re: Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa
I am contacting you in the hope that during your visits to Zimbabwe and South Africa you will confront head on with your black interlocutors (some of whom will be regime stooges) the racist and murderous behaviour of Mugabe’s regime and the tacit encouragement given by Zuma’s regime to black racist murderers in South Africa. There exists the very real danger – you work for the BBC after all – that you will refuse to tackle these questions since the organisation for which you work insists on presenting an anodyne, rainbow-coloured picture of South Africa to the rest of the world rather than the gruesome and savage reality that exists.
Some six years ago I met a farmer’s wife, Betty her name was, who had just been thrown out of Zimbabwe. Her crime consisted in the fact that her husband and she were successful, white farmers. Here is what happened. One day a gang of so-called “war veterans” (“war veterans” is the term used by Mugabe’s regime to describe the roving gangs who plunder white-owned farms and kill the owners) turned up at her farm. She was told that her husband and she would be thrown out of the country in one hour. Her husband died on the spot of a heart attack. Betty was only permitted to gather up enough personal effects sufficient to fill a small, hand-held suitcase. She was then taken to the airport and put on a plane. Betty and her husband had lived all their lives in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Not long after Betty related this harrowing account to me she died, broken-hearted and alone.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that Mugabe’s policy of dispossessing capable, productive white farmers and handing over the land and assets to incompetent blacks in the hope that blacks will simply continue what whites have created, nurtured and improved is the major cause of Zimbabwe’s miserable plight today. Indeed, inspired by Mugabe’s grotesque, Marxist policies of murder and mayhem, South Africa is already repeating the whole experiment and on a much bigger scale (see below). It is important that you and your masters understand these facts since Mugabe is solely responsible for turning a once thriving farming industry, with healthy surpluses for export, into a typical, Third-World basket case. No white person, man or woman, is responsible for this precipitate and dramatic decline. Mugabe and his fellow blacks confirm that when blacks are left to their own de(vices) regardless of any superior legacy bequeathed to them by the white man, the descent into murderousness and squalor is rapid and inevitable. Whites are not responsible for black failure. Nor do whites have any moral obligation whatsoever to make good the damage inflicted on Zimbabwe – disease, starvation, political violence and rampant inflation – by a deranged criminal and his peculiar brand of tribal, Marxist mumbo-jumbo.
If anything the situation is much worse in South Africa. The policies of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC) towards whites are racist, violent and entirely consistent with the way left-wing and communist regimes behave towards talented and competent minorities. Consider the fate of white farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, over 3,000 farmers and owners of small holdings have been murdered by black racist thugs. These murders frequently involve the most dreadful tortures being inflicted on the white victims before they die. Wives and daughters are raped in front of their men, tortured and then shot or hacked to pieces with machetes. The men are then tortured and eventually after the torturers have had enough are shot and left for dead. Babies, young children and the very old are not spared by these degenerates. In fact, the word “torture” cannot convey the unspeakable torments to which the victims - wives, women, girls, boys and fathers - were subjected before death released them. I have personally seen high definition digital images of white victims taken at the scene of crime by a Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO). They are the most terrible images I have ever seen in my life. Nothing in my military service could ever have prepared me for what I saw.
Publicly, the ANC tries to play down these racist atrocities by claiming that violent crime affects everyone in South Africa, black and white. Up to a point this ANC claim is true but this claim hides, as it is intended to hide, the racial dimension of black-on-white crimes: the deliberate targeting of white farmers and others by black racists. Now, imagine the politically-correct, anti-racist fervour which would consume the BBC if some 3,000 black farmers had been robbed, tortured, raped, sodomised and executed by whites since 1994. One thing we can take for granted: FIFA would never have awarded the 2010 World Cup to South Africa.
I recently encountered white South Africans who maintain that whites in South Africa are the targets of genocide. Initially, I was sceptical. I have now changed my mind. There is no doubt that much of what is happening to whites in South Africa meets the criteria necessary to satisfy the definition of genocide: a group of people (whites) are the subject of deliberate violence which the government (ANC) either refuses to acknowledge or tacitly encourages (and does not prevent); whites are routinely denied employment and other opportunities so that low-IQ and poorly qualified blacks can be employed in place of whites; white culture (above all Boer) is denigrated, attacked and cultural artifacts are vandalised; the government media encourage a climate of hatred towards whites which makes it much easier for black racist killers to rob, to rape, to murder and to torture whites since they believe they have ANC approval. Here we can note a disturbing parallel with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Long before the communists started to slaughter the peasants in the Soviet Union and the Nazis implemented the mass murder of Jews in Eastern Europe the state propaganda apparatus in both states targeted their respective “enemies of the people”. In the Soviet Union hard-working peasants were denounced as “parasites” and in Nazi Germany Jews as “agents of Zionism” plotting to stab Germany in the back. And what do we hear in South Africa: “One bullet, one settler”. The languages are not the same but the malevolent, genocidal spirit is identical.
Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa provides you with a unique opportunity to highlight what is happening to whites. It is high time that the BBC behaved in a way demanded by its charter. The BBC has an obligation to speak out honestly and openly, without fear or favour, and far as the fate of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is concerned it has so far failed to do so.
Some six years ago I met a farmer’s wife, Betty her name was, who had just been thrown out of Zimbabwe. Her crime consisted in the fact that her husband and she were successful, white farmers. Here is what happened. One day a gang of so-called “war veterans” (“war veterans” is the term used by Mugabe’s regime to describe the roving gangs who plunder white-owned farms and kill the owners) turned up at her farm. She was told that her husband and she would be thrown out of the country in one hour. Her husband died on the spot of a heart attack. Betty was only permitted to gather up enough personal effects sufficient to fill a small, hand-held suitcase. She was then taken to the airport and put on a plane. Betty and her husband had lived all their lives in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Not long after Betty related this harrowing account to me she died, broken-hearted and alone.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that Mugabe’s policy of dispossessing capable, productive white farmers and handing over the land and assets to incompetent blacks in the hope that blacks will simply continue what whites have created, nurtured and improved is the major cause of Zimbabwe’s miserable plight today. Indeed, inspired by Mugabe’s grotesque, Marxist policies of murder and mayhem, South Africa is already repeating the whole experiment and on a much bigger scale (see below). It is important that you and your masters understand these facts since Mugabe is solely responsible for turning a once thriving farming industry, with healthy surpluses for export, into a typical, Third-World basket case. No white person, man or woman, is responsible for this precipitate and dramatic decline. Mugabe and his fellow blacks confirm that when blacks are left to their own de(vices) regardless of any superior legacy bequeathed to them by the white man, the descent into murderousness and squalor is rapid and inevitable. Whites are not responsible for black failure. Nor do whites have any moral obligation whatsoever to make good the damage inflicted on Zimbabwe – disease, starvation, political violence and rampant inflation – by a deranged criminal and his peculiar brand of tribal, Marxist mumbo-jumbo.
If anything the situation is much worse in South Africa. The policies of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC) towards whites are racist, violent and entirely consistent with the way left-wing and communist regimes behave towards talented and competent minorities. Consider the fate of white farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, over 3,000 farmers and owners of small holdings have been murdered by black racist thugs. These murders frequently involve the most dreadful tortures being inflicted on the white victims before they die. Wives and daughters are raped in front of their men, tortured and then shot or hacked to pieces with machetes. The men are then tortured and eventually after the torturers have had enough are shot and left for dead. Babies, young children and the very old are not spared by these degenerates. In fact, the word “torture” cannot convey the unspeakable torments to which the victims - wives, women, girls, boys and fathers - were subjected before death released them. I have personally seen high definition digital images of white victims taken at the scene of crime by a Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO). They are the most terrible images I have ever seen in my life. Nothing in my military service could ever have prepared me for what I saw.
Publicly, the ANC tries to play down these racist atrocities by claiming that violent crime affects everyone in South Africa, black and white. Up to a point this ANC claim is true but this claim hides, as it is intended to hide, the racial dimension of black-on-white crimes: the deliberate targeting of white farmers and others by black racists. Now, imagine the politically-correct, anti-racist fervour which would consume the BBC if some 3,000 black farmers had been robbed, tortured, raped, sodomised and executed by whites since 1994. One thing we can take for granted: FIFA would never have awarded the 2010 World Cup to South Africa.
I recently encountered white South Africans who maintain that whites in South Africa are the targets of genocide. Initially, I was sceptical. I have now changed my mind. There is no doubt that much of what is happening to whites in South Africa meets the criteria necessary to satisfy the definition of genocide: a group of people (whites) are the subject of deliberate violence which the government (ANC) either refuses to acknowledge or tacitly encourages (and does not prevent); whites are routinely denied employment and other opportunities so that low-IQ and poorly qualified blacks can be employed in place of whites; white culture (above all Boer) is denigrated, attacked and cultural artifacts are vandalised; the government media encourage a climate of hatred towards whites which makes it much easier for black racist killers to rob, to rape, to murder and to torture whites since they believe they have ANC approval. Here we can note a disturbing parallel with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Long before the communists started to slaughter the peasants in the Soviet Union and the Nazis implemented the mass murder of Jews in Eastern Europe the state propaganda apparatus in both states targeted their respective “enemies of the people”. In the Soviet Union hard-working peasants were denounced as “parasites” and in Nazi Germany Jews as “agents of Zionism” plotting to stab Germany in the back. And what do we hear in South Africa: “One bullet, one settler”. The languages are not the same but the malevolent, genocidal spirit is identical.
Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa provides you with a unique opportunity to highlight what is happening to whites. It is high time that the BBC behaved in a way demanded by its charter. The BBC has an obligation to speak out honestly and openly, without fear or favour, and far as the fate of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is concerned it has so far failed to do so.
Monday, 1 June 2009
The fading light of Africa
Robert Mugabe's thugs chanted: 'We will eat your children'(From the Times June 1 2009)
The invaders came at 11pm. Fifteen of them — singing, chanting and crashing metal objects together by our windows. “Out, out,” they shouted as they surrounded our farm — they certainly wanted us out. They broke into the house and dragged burning tyres through the front door. They invaded the hallway and occupied the courtyard. The flames leapt into the thatch as they pulled the tyres under it, but it did not catch alight.
This was last Tuesday. I called the police but then the invaders took the phone away. Their leader, who calls himself “Landmine”, was armed with a rifle. They pushed us around and raised sticks and said that we must leave. They beat my tonga drum so hard that the cowhide skin broke.
One of them went up to the children, who had been woken by the din. “Josh, Josh, there’s a man in our room,” said Anna, 4. Joshua, 9, told my wife Laura afterwards that the man was making hyena noises. My other son, Stephen, is 7.
Police arrived and the invaders were ushered out. None was arrested, but “Landmine” did return my phone at the request of the police. When the police left, though, the invaders resumed their attack. They did not break in this time, but they made a lot of noise, circling the house like whooping hyenas and shouting before they left: “We will eat the children.”
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Zimbabwe - a model of cause and effect
It is now frequently asked from corners of the Western world “When does Zimbabwe return to normal?”
Zimbabwe has returned to normal. From time immemorial Zimbabwe was a Stone Age culture, without a written language, without wheel or shoe. Social order was by primitive law, a melange of practicality, mystic, pragmatism and witchcraft. Maternal mortality was 1:6.
The sole factor, which changed Zimbabwe, was the arrival of white colonists. These colonists alone created a culture which allowed an agricultural and creative productivity supremely beneficial to all the inhabitants. That productivity increased progressively as the number of white colonists increased.
Many who claim knowledge ability respond with “But Zimbabwe is a modern country – look at the high-rise cities, look at the sophisticated population which dresses well, drives expensive vehicles, travel internationally, have their children in top schools”. What these “authorities” fail to comprehend is that what they see now is no more than a relic of a lost past. If an earthquake destroyed the built environment there would be no possibility of the natives rebuilding it. Zimbabweans would return to seeking shelter in grass and mud huts, surviving with a primitive agriculture. The natives cannot even maintain the current infrastructure which decays progressively month by month. The foundation of all past civilisations, which is the provision of clean water and sanitation, has proved beyond the capability of the Zimbabwean government, which has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths from cholera, enteritis and many other water borne epidemics. Not only do the obvious material constructs like roads and railways decay, but so also are the less obvious technical constructs like the aviation and health infrastructures are in downward decay - mostly there is no air-traffic control over Zimbabwe. Almost all hospitals have closed. Law is varied to suit the whim of the headmen.
What about the grand who flaunt their wealth? These are no more than the asset strippers temporarily preening the residua of a failed civilisation. There is not the productivity to support this charade indefinitely and the facade continues to abrade away. Like the teen who steals father’s Lamborghini to impress a girl, so these people continue to try to seduce the West into giving aid and making investment on the basis of claiming ownership of a “civilisation”. But there is no prospect of re-building this nation, unless a form of colonisation returns, of course.
These claims will be difficult to get into the intellects of those who wish not to hear. Some will continue to deny this failure of a race, denying both cause and effect.
One technique of establishing cause and effect phenomena is to remove the hypothetical causative agent and measure response.
In Zimbabwe the colonists were forced to leave and as their numbers lessened so the constructive capability of the nation degraded in parallel. There was an absolute cause and effect relationship. Once a critical threshold of whites had left, agricultural production plummeted and mining in many arenas ceased. In 2008 the school year was “closed”, i.e. literacy ceased being taught. The hospitals closed one after the other and maternal mortality is returning to one death in every six pregnancies. Malaria, polio, typhoid, typhus, plague, meningitis and measles are all returning to pre-colonial levels. Starvation is endemic. Life expectancy is returning to 37 years for males, 34 for females. The statistics of the Stone Age have returned.
For any logician, the cause and effect relationship between the presence of the colonists and the productivity of the country should be indisputable. There are sufficient grounds to reach that conclusion.
However, analytical science requires that any hypothesis of cause and effect be reproducible. How can we reproduce this model? It is fairly simple.
David Bullard was a popular columnist with the Johannesburg Sunday Times, who had been praised by the editor for his objective insight. However, he made the mistake of speculating, in print, what South Africa would have been like had the colonists not arrived. He believed that it would have remained a hunter-gatherer Stone Age society. Needless to say he was dismissed from the Johannesburg Sunday Times. The reasons were not that his logic was at fault but that the black editor denied this logic, denied history and denied reality.
Was Bullard correct? What if there were areas of Africa which had never been colonized? This was exactly the case in parts of Northern Nigeria. These areas had never been colonised and remained as they had been since time immemorial: thick bush, malaria, insufferable temperatures and no productivity. The only trace of the 21st century was the extermination of many wild animals by fire-armed native poachers.
Let us take the experimental model further. What would happen if you put colonists into this Stone Age environment? Exactly that occurred when individuals of white colonist stock, who had been expelled from their farms in Zimbabwe, were invited to begin “developing” this wild bush land. Effectively they had been asked to “colonize”.
What was the outcome? In five years these white farming colonists had turned wild, impenetrable, unpleasant and dangerous bush into productive farms. Sorghum and many other products were now produced in large quantities. Water had been obtained for irrigation, mechanical infrastructure had been introduced and malaria and other diseases were being controlled.
This example, together with the invitation to whites to re-colonise Moçambique and Sudan (and the recent invitation to whites to re-colonize by the Congolese) proves that the white colonists were a sufficient ingredient to create productive civilizations and were the necessary component in sustaining agriculture in these areas. Without them productive civilisation fails.
That Bullard may well have been correct is illustrated by these sequences of events which substantiate the hypothesis that white colonists are necessary if Africa is to thrive. If the country is to return to its past achievements the only practical way is to invite a re-colonization by the erstwhile white Zimbabweans. However they will require a return of the foundations of Western civilisation, such as an enforceable and fair system if justice, reinstatement of their Zimbabwean nationality, and security of ownership.
The cynics will now say that once these colonists have created an infrastructure in any of these black-governed lands the native asset strippers will get active again, destroying exactly as they did in Zimbabwe. Will black Africa again reap without sowing?
Time will execute this experiment also…
Zimbabwe has returned to normal. From time immemorial Zimbabwe was a Stone Age culture, without a written language, without wheel or shoe. Social order was by primitive law, a melange of practicality, mystic, pragmatism and witchcraft. Maternal mortality was 1:6.
The sole factor, which changed Zimbabwe, was the arrival of white colonists. These colonists alone created a culture which allowed an agricultural and creative productivity supremely beneficial to all the inhabitants. That productivity increased progressively as the number of white colonists increased.
Many who claim knowledge ability respond with “But Zimbabwe is a modern country – look at the high-rise cities, look at the sophisticated population which dresses well, drives expensive vehicles, travel internationally, have their children in top schools”. What these “authorities” fail to comprehend is that what they see now is no more than a relic of a lost past. If an earthquake destroyed the built environment there would be no possibility of the natives rebuilding it. Zimbabweans would return to seeking shelter in grass and mud huts, surviving with a primitive agriculture. The natives cannot even maintain the current infrastructure which decays progressively month by month. The foundation of all past civilisations, which is the provision of clean water and sanitation, has proved beyond the capability of the Zimbabwean government, which has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths from cholera, enteritis and many other water borne epidemics. Not only do the obvious material constructs like roads and railways decay, but so also are the less obvious technical constructs like the aviation and health infrastructures are in downward decay - mostly there is no air-traffic control over Zimbabwe. Almost all hospitals have closed. Law is varied to suit the whim of the headmen.
What about the grand who flaunt their wealth? These are no more than the asset strippers temporarily preening the residua of a failed civilisation. There is not the productivity to support this charade indefinitely and the facade continues to abrade away. Like the teen who steals father’s Lamborghini to impress a girl, so these people continue to try to seduce the West into giving aid and making investment on the basis of claiming ownership of a “civilisation”. But there is no prospect of re-building this nation, unless a form of colonisation returns, of course.
These claims will be difficult to get into the intellects of those who wish not to hear. Some will continue to deny this failure of a race, denying both cause and effect.
One technique of establishing cause and effect phenomena is to remove the hypothetical causative agent and measure response.
In Zimbabwe the colonists were forced to leave and as their numbers lessened so the constructive capability of the nation degraded in parallel. There was an absolute cause and effect relationship. Once a critical threshold of whites had left, agricultural production plummeted and mining in many arenas ceased. In 2008 the school year was “closed”, i.e. literacy ceased being taught. The hospitals closed one after the other and maternal mortality is returning to one death in every six pregnancies. Malaria, polio, typhoid, typhus, plague, meningitis and measles are all returning to pre-colonial levels. Starvation is endemic. Life expectancy is returning to 37 years for males, 34 for females. The statistics of the Stone Age have returned.
For any logician, the cause and effect relationship between the presence of the colonists and the productivity of the country should be indisputable. There are sufficient grounds to reach that conclusion.
However, analytical science requires that any hypothesis of cause and effect be reproducible. How can we reproduce this model? It is fairly simple.
David Bullard was a popular columnist with the Johannesburg Sunday Times, who had been praised by the editor for his objective insight. However, he made the mistake of speculating, in print, what South Africa would have been like had the colonists not arrived. He believed that it would have remained a hunter-gatherer Stone Age society. Needless to say he was dismissed from the Johannesburg Sunday Times. The reasons were not that his logic was at fault but that the black editor denied this logic, denied history and denied reality.
Was Bullard correct? What if there were areas of Africa which had never been colonized? This was exactly the case in parts of Northern Nigeria. These areas had never been colonised and remained as they had been since time immemorial: thick bush, malaria, insufferable temperatures and no productivity. The only trace of the 21st century was the extermination of many wild animals by fire-armed native poachers.
Let us take the experimental model further. What would happen if you put colonists into this Stone Age environment? Exactly that occurred when individuals of white colonist stock, who had been expelled from their farms in Zimbabwe, were invited to begin “developing” this wild bush land. Effectively they had been asked to “colonize”.
What was the outcome? In five years these white farming colonists had turned wild, impenetrable, unpleasant and dangerous bush into productive farms. Sorghum and many other products were now produced in large quantities. Water had been obtained for irrigation, mechanical infrastructure had been introduced and malaria and other diseases were being controlled.
This example, together with the invitation to whites to re-colonise Moçambique and Sudan (and the recent invitation to whites to re-colonize by the Congolese) proves that the white colonists were a sufficient ingredient to create productive civilizations and were the necessary component in sustaining agriculture in these areas. Without them productive civilisation fails.
That Bullard may well have been correct is illustrated by these sequences of events which substantiate the hypothesis that white colonists are necessary if Africa is to thrive. If the country is to return to its past achievements the only practical way is to invite a re-colonization by the erstwhile white Zimbabweans. However they will require a return of the foundations of Western civilisation, such as an enforceable and fair system if justice, reinstatement of their Zimbabwean nationality, and security of ownership.
The cynics will now say that once these colonists have created an infrastructure in any of these black-governed lands the native asset strippers will get active again, destroying exactly as they did in Zimbabwe. Will black Africa again reap without sowing?
Time will execute this experiment also…
Monday, 30 March 2009
Political mightiness in the “creation” of Zimbabwe.
By guest contributor Robin HindDavid Owen arrived as a boy politician in Rhodesia in 1977, oozing self confident smugness. He was the man to solve the problems of a distant and socially complex nation, or so he thought. It was immediately apparent to those Rhodesians, who had given their lives working to create a civilisation, that this man simply did not have the insight, maturity or capabilities to interfere with the intricate social structures which the Colonists had created. Much the same applied to the British government.
At that date the creators of Rhodesia hoped and planned that every inhabitant would and should receive a better, safer, healthier life if the nation were allowed to continue its remarkable creative prosperity. Those astonishingly capable pioneers had already demonstrated that by achieving the lowest infantile death rate in Africa and the highest literacy rate in Africa. The wisdom and experience of the colonists was paramount, and was there for the asking.
However David Owen and, later, Peter Carrington (and the British government) "knew better". What astonishing self-opinionated arrogance.
Peter Carrington was asked, after the collapse of Zimbabwe, what he thought of the outcome of that “independence”. “No one could have anticipated this outcome” was his way of excusing his failure.
The reality is that many wise and profound people did know it would end this way, but their soundly based views were brushed aside by "know-alls", flexing muscle which was politically vested, but not justified by any other capabilities.
To demonstrate the inevitable failure of this meddlesomeness by uninformed (and misinformed) busy-bodies, swinging lanterns of righteousness and moral rectitude, the attached (copyright) cartoon was commissioned. It was not published in 1977 because of a sycophantic deferentially of the press to the British politicians. However its message of the dangers of political bumptiousness remains valid today.
---------------------------------------------
David Owen, born 1938, qualified as a medical practitioner in 1962, but tried politics in 1964, losing the election. He was Foreign Secretary, 1977 to 1979, responsible for setting the stage for the transfer of power in Zimbabwe. His opportunistic changing of political party allegiance caused him to be regarded as a “serial resigner”.
Owen’s appointment in the British House of Commons greeted by Jack Cunningham who said the choice "was regarded as somewhat eccentric. Owen is known for many qualities, but not as a mediator. Indeed he has balkanised a few political parties himself" [adapted from Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia [2001] Brendan Simms p137]
When the European Parliament voted for Owen’s dismissal the perception in America was that Owen was "not fulfilling his function as an impartial negotiator...” [Unfinest Hour, p167].
Edward Mortimer in the Financial Times said "Owen’s departure may have surprised some who did not realise he was still in the job." [Unfinest Hour, p 171-2]
Owen's versions of events in books which he authored books are said to differ considerably from most other sources. Owen's version of his time in the Balkans was derided by academics and reviewers as 'depend(ent) on factual error, false logic and sheer omission.'
He was one of the authors of the failed Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenberg peace plans offered during the Bosnian War
He testified in the trial of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, and caused some controversy by asserting that Milošević was the only leader in the Bosnian war who had consistently supported peace, and that any form of racism was personally "anathema" to him. Bosnians gave him the nick name "Lord of the Dead”. Many Zimbabweans would concord..
Honored by life peerage in 1992 as Baron Owen of Plymouth
Peter Carrington ascended to the Baronetcy in 1938 as 6th Baron, and entered the House of Lords on his 21st birthday.
As British Foreign Secretary he chaired the Lancaster House agreement on the transfer of power away from the Rhodesian Colonists in 1979.
In his decisions he chose to ignore the opinions of those who had first hand knowledge of the country, and lifelong contact with the country and its people.
He was Foreign Secretary in 1982 when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina. He took full responsibility for the complacency and failures in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to foresee this development and resigned.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Zimbabwe and Gaza
By guest contributor: A Son of ZimbabweIt is worth comparing the events in Zimbabwe with those recently seen in Gaza.
For every person killed in Gaza by shellfire, more than two were killed in Zimbabwe by cholera.
Cholera does not come out of nowhere: It is not a natural disaster: it is not an act of God. Cholera is caused. The cause is well known. Not only that, but the cure is known – and the cure is the easiest and cheapest of any dangerous infective disease. It is cured by administering water, sugar and salt. Even if an antibiotic is used (and that is not essential) the appropriate antibiotic is the oldest, cheapest and most available of all mankind’s current weapons of medical defence.
Not one person should die of cholera. Further, not one person in Zimbabwe, given the protective infrastructure created by the colonists, should ever have become infected with cholera. Cholera was virtually non-existent during colonial rule.
Therefore those people who are dying of cholera are being killed by a policy designed to keep a minority in power and in wealth. Equally they were killed by the failure of the West to intervene. Where was Condoleezza Rice? Where was Gordon Brown? Where was Sarkosy? Where was Mubarak? Still worse, where were those who spewed the outraged public opinion which prompted the politicians to respond in Gaza? Western intervention could have been non-military. It could have been rapid and would have cost little.
The people of Zimbabwe are being killed at this moment by the inertia of those who so self-righteously bleat criticisms at Israel for trying to solve the problem of protecting their people from a small, fanatical minority. They are being killed by those politicians from the West who chose to prance on those stages which give them the best political kudos.
Gaza has been temporarily solved.
Zimbabweans continue to die horrible, lingering deaths: Deaths caused by a ruthlessly indifferent regime. Compare that with the regret and compassionate assistance offered by Israel to those in Gaza. But also it is caused by those who are in a position to act, but turn away. When will you notice your stains of shame, you pompous western politician?
And the coldly planned executions by the torture or political and commercial assassination of Zimbabweans are not even addressed in these numbers.
For every person killed in Gaza by shellfire, more than two were killed in Zimbabwe by cholera.
Cholera does not come out of nowhere: It is not a natural disaster: it is not an act of God. Cholera is caused. The cause is well known. Not only that, but the cure is known – and the cure is the easiest and cheapest of any dangerous infective disease. It is cured by administering water, sugar and salt. Even if an antibiotic is used (and that is not essential) the appropriate antibiotic is the oldest, cheapest and most available of all mankind’s current weapons of medical defence.
Not one person should die of cholera. Further, not one person in Zimbabwe, given the protective infrastructure created by the colonists, should ever have become infected with cholera. Cholera was virtually non-existent during colonial rule.
Therefore those people who are dying of cholera are being killed by a policy designed to keep a minority in power and in wealth. Equally they were killed by the failure of the West to intervene. Where was Condoleezza Rice? Where was Gordon Brown? Where was Sarkosy? Where was Mubarak? Still worse, where were those who spewed the outraged public opinion which prompted the politicians to respond in Gaza? Western intervention could have been non-military. It could have been rapid and would have cost little.
The people of Zimbabwe are being killed at this moment by the inertia of those who so self-righteously bleat criticisms at Israel for trying to solve the problem of protecting their people from a small, fanatical minority. They are being killed by those politicians from the West who chose to prance on those stages which give them the best political kudos.
Gaza has been temporarily solved.
Zimbabweans continue to die horrible, lingering deaths: Deaths caused by a ruthlessly indifferent regime. Compare that with the regret and compassionate assistance offered by Israel to those in Gaza. But also it is caused by those who are in a position to act, but turn away. When will you notice your stains of shame, you pompous western politician?
And the coldly planned executions by the torture or political and commercial assassination of Zimbabweans are not even addressed in these numbers.
Monday, 2 February 2009
A view from Zimbabwe
By a son of Zimbabwe
The importance of the Zimbabwean catastrophe, I believe, is the relationship that this loss of civilisation has to the civilisation which you (and I) wish to protect.
The Zimbabwean tragedy is not the aberrant result of a single loose cannon – not a bizarre individual's idiosyncrasy. It is a model of how the counter-culture of parts of the globe will destroy. This is a model of black incompetence wrapped in the delusions of capability. It is the exemplification of the ruthless power as it develops within primitive communities. It is the expression of a social personality which is so askance to that which created Western Society. It is a society which cannot conceive the type of social relationship mechanism which allowed the evolution of the culture which we inherited.
I am not prepared to heed those who say "given time, education, compassion, tolerance, and leadership, these people will come right". I am not concerned because there is no time. Education and all else has been given to excess. Indeed these people were supplied with a fully functioning nation to demonstrate their capabilities. Like children playing with a complex toy which they could not appreciate or understand, that nation was dismembered, and rapidly left in fragments.
About 7% of the world is white (extrapolated from Economist figures of about 10 years ago). Therefore there is not only no time, but there is no space. The prospects of large invasions by those on intent on stripping assets is real – made so much more probable by the apparent social suicide of the Western politicians.
Large invasions will be made more likely by the West’s economic bust, again engineered by politicians of such crass stupidity that the word "politician" requires re-defining. The primary purpose of wealth should be self protection. The national wealth has and continues to be squandered in a political make-believe. As one result of this impending impoverishment, the West will soon not be in a position to defend itself against invading hoards. There will be no time, no space and no money to protect the civilisation. The invading masses will not come as conventional armies; instead they will arrive as masses of people in unstoppable numbers. Initially the "rights activists", "processes" and "humanitarian recognition", EU directives and government inertia will stall a response. "Sleepers" in these countries (like Britain) will allow an easy and irreversible infiltration. Indeed that process is well advanced. But the White Briton, like the frog which is slowly heated, remains unaware of the threat they face. It might take someone like me, from an arms length, to visualise the full danger.
Incidentally the opinions of those who opposed Enoch Powell, with the same trashy rhetoric we still have, are now demonstrated to have been so wrong. Powell's figures in relation to immigration, so sneered at, at that time, were well exceeded by 2000, the last year for which Powell gave his predictions. Is it time for an "Enoch Powell Remembrance Day"?
The Zimbabwean tragedy is not the aberrant result of a single loose cannon – not a bizarre individual's idiosyncrasy. It is a model of how the counter-culture of parts of the globe will destroy. This is a model of black incompetence wrapped in the delusions of capability. It is the exemplification of the ruthless power as it develops within primitive communities. It is the expression of a social personality which is so askance to that which created Western Society. It is a society which cannot conceive the type of social relationship mechanism which allowed the evolution of the culture which we inherited.
I am not prepared to heed those who say "given time, education, compassion, tolerance, and leadership, these people will come right". I am not concerned because there is no time. Education and all else has been given to excess. Indeed these people were supplied with a fully functioning nation to demonstrate their capabilities. Like children playing with a complex toy which they could not appreciate or understand, that nation was dismembered, and rapidly left in fragments.
About 7% of the world is white (extrapolated from Economist figures of about 10 years ago). Therefore there is not only no time, but there is no space. The prospects of large invasions by those on intent on stripping assets is real – made so much more probable by the apparent social suicide of the Western politicians.
Large invasions will be made more likely by the West’s economic bust, again engineered by politicians of such crass stupidity that the word "politician" requires re-defining. The primary purpose of wealth should be self protection. The national wealth has and continues to be squandered in a political make-believe. As one result of this impending impoverishment, the West will soon not be in a position to defend itself against invading hoards. There will be no time, no space and no money to protect the civilisation. The invading masses will not come as conventional armies; instead they will arrive as masses of people in unstoppable numbers. Initially the "rights activists", "processes" and "humanitarian recognition", EU directives and government inertia will stall a response. "Sleepers" in these countries (like Britain) will allow an easy and irreversible infiltration. Indeed that process is well advanced. But the White Briton, like the frog which is slowly heated, remains unaware of the threat they face. It might take someone like me, from an arms length, to visualise the full danger.
Incidentally the opinions of those who opposed Enoch Powell, with the same trashy rhetoric we still have, are now demonstrated to have been so wrong. Powell's figures in relation to immigration, so sneered at, at that time, were well exceeded by 2000, the last year for which Powell gave his predictions. Is it time for an "Enoch Powell Remembrance Day"?
Friday, 12 December 2008
S.O.S. - A letter from Zimbabwe
Letter from Zimbabwe sent in by John Winter
I reckon that these are the last days of TKM and ZPF. The darkest hour is always before dawn.
We are all terrified at what they are going to destroy next........I mean they are actually ploughing down brick and mortar houses and one family with twin boys of 10 had no chance of salvaging anything when 100 riot police came in with AK47's and bulldozers and demolished their beautiful house - 5 bedrooms and pine ceilings - because it was 'too close to the airport', so we are feeling extremely insecure right now.
You know - I am aware that this does not help you sleep at night, but if you do not know - how can you help? Even if you put us in your own mental ring of light and send your guardian angels to be with us - that is a help -but I feel so cut off from you all knowing I cannot tell you what's going on here simply because you will feel uncomfortable. There is no ways we can leave here so that is not an option.
I ask that you all pray for us in the way that you know how, and let me know that you are thinking of us and sending out positive vibes... that's all. You can't just be in denial and pretend/believe it's not going on.
To be frank with you, it's genocide in the making and if you do not believe me, read the Genocide Report by Amnesty International which says we are - IN level 7 - (level 8 is after it's happened and everyone is in denial).
If you don't want me to tell you these things-how bad it is-then it means you have not dealt with your own fear, but it does not help me to think you are turning your back on our situation. We need you, please, to get the news OUT that we are all in a fearfully dangerous situation here. Too many people turn their backs and say - oh well, that's what happens in Africa
This Government has GONE MAD and you need to help us publicize our plight---or how can we be rescued? It's a reality! The petrol queues are a reality, the pall of smoke all around our city is a reality, the thousands of homeless people sleeping outside in 0 Celsius with no food, water, shelter and bedding are a reality. Today a family approached me, brother of the gardener's wife with two small children. Their home was trashed and they will have to sleep outside. We already support 8 adult people and a child on this property, and electricity is going up next month by 250% as is water.
How can I take on another family of 4 -----and yet how can I turn them away to sleep out in the open?
I am not asking you for money or a ticket out of here - I am asking you to FACE the fact that we are in deep and terrible danger and want you please to pass on our news and pictures. So PLEASE don't just press the delete button! Help best in the way that you know how.
Do face the reality of what is going on here and help us SEND OUT THE WORD.. The more people who know about it, the more chance we have of the United Nations coming to our aid. Please don't ignore or deny what's happening.Some would like to be protected from the truth BUT then, if we are eliminated, how would you feel? 'If only we knew how bad it really was we could have helped in some way'.
[I know we chose to stay here and that some feel we deserve what's coming to us]
For now,--- we ourselves have food, shelter, a little fuel and a bit of money for the next meal - but what is going to happen next? Will they start on our houses? All property is going to belong to the State now. I want to send out my Title Deeds to one of you because if they get a hold of those, I can't fight for my rights.
Censorship!----We no longer have SW radio [which told us everything that was happening] because the Government jammed it out of existence - we don't have any reporters, and no one is allowed to photograph. If we had reporters here, they would have an absolute field day. Even the pro-Government Herald has written that people are shocked, stunned, bewildered and blown mindless by the wanton destruction of many folks homes, which are supposed to be 'illegal' but for which a huge percentage actually do have licenses.
Please! - do have some compassion and HELP by sending out the articles and personal reports so that something can/may be done.
'I am one. I cannot do everything, ---but I can do something.. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)