we've been bombarded with commentary addressing the situation in
Zimbabwe; a situation that comes as no surprise whatsoever to those
of us who followed the situation or saw it up close. The British
in particular are clucking their tongues and wondered how did things
get so bad?
of the many problems with the English is that they are such overbearing
and effete snobs. I've often heard them mock the "hillbilly"
accent of Rhodesians as if that somehow placed them outside the
pale of "real" Englishmen. How unfortunate that Rhodesians
employed blacks as servants. Unlike the British who for centuries
have bred themselves a class of specially trained and highly sycophantic
white men for that very task. Of course it is racist to have black
servants. Far better to let them die of starvation due to lack of
job skills. The Rhodesians further confounded the Brits by actually
working hard. It's in such bad form.
wait – isn't the black African's lack of job skills the white man's
fault!? That's what we are supposed to believe. The reverse is true.
Stone age tribesmen have very few if any skills that are useful
in technological society, and indeed the blacks (Mashona) in Rhodesia
were facing extinction when the brutal and racist whites showed
up with all that mean ole medicine and food, indirectly encouraging
population growth but not creating enough jobs for them all to work.
Not that bush tribesmen had previously had any such formality as
employment. For some reason that must astonish the environmentalists,
tribesmen who've been exposed to western style culture can never
return to communing with mother earth in the bush, even if they
are there physically. Once they taste that store bought beer and
get the feel of money in their pocket, it's hard to turn back. Yet
the blacks who wanted to farm did so quite satisfactorily under
Ian Smith despite the myth that the whites got the best land. The
whites made something of the land is all, sharing freely of their
technology, particularly in animal husbandry and things like cattle
dips. Plenty of blacks made good at this too, until the communists
petulant and facile news media have no time to actually learn anything;
they are programmed to go out to write a piece that supports the
point of view their masters have determined is right for them. I
wonder if they are aware how indifferent soldiers have become to
their safety? We must take our laughs when we can get them. But
such harshness calls forth all sorts of simpering platitudes about
morality from silly boys and girls who wouldn't know morality if
they stumbled over it. We in Rhodesia were accused of waging an
immoral war by liars who wouldn't report enemy atrocities and made
up atrocity stories about us. These same fledgling Pulitzer candidates
had no clue about tribal hierarchies or dynamics; that sort of thing
can't be summed up in a sound bite. The communist tactic of coercing
the witch doctors and brutalizing the tribal chieftains was dismissed
by the west as "giving collaborators what they deserve."
were convinced that all the blacks were poor because even the rich
ones (and there were plenty in the Trustlands) lived in roundels
(round buildings — often well made of brick and quite sturdy). Well
guess what Mr. Newsman – they must have forgotten to tell you in
that fancy school that not everybody wants to live in Manhattan,
cooped up like a rat in a trap. But that doesn't stop rich Africans
from owning thousands of mambi (cattle) and having dozens of wives.
Or at least it didn't before they were exterminated by the "liberators."
It wasn't just whites who lost their land and their lives.
made a really silly choice, back in 1861. The choice between a gentlemen,
Mr. Lee and a drunk, Mr. Grant. The latter burned the South down
and went on to become the most corrupt American president until
Mr. Bill Clinton shambled onto the scene. Lee, of course is honored
by millions to this day. That same kind of choice was made for the
Rhodesians, and like Southern Americans, they resisted. But they
fought like gentlemen, scarcely realizing how vicious the international
community had become. It still amazes me that most Rhodesians had
at least a gut assumption that the western countries wouldn't allow
the collapse of the country into barbarism and were simply misinformed
about the true nature of the struggle there. Shows how wrong you
can be. Just as the Southern American forces could have defeated
the North, had we but stooped to their barbaric methods, the Rhodesians
too could have destroyed their enemies. But they were too civilized
to do it. They realized, as Christians must, that defeat is a matter
of degree, and when we give into the satanic practices of the enemy,
we are lost. Better to lose the whole world than to lose your soul.
that be why America declined so radically when our leaders determined
to fight communist fire with more of the same? Have we become our
enemy? It sure looks like it. Just ask any school kid what he knows
about our constitution and you will find he knows nothing. But I
bet he knows what kind of underwear the president wears.
the US, it is commonly assumed that we won the cold war. This is
because we were so misinformed that most of us assume it was the
Russians who were our enemy. No, it was the communists. They rule
fall of Rhodesia was a dark day in the history of civilized man.
Good manners and old fashioned hospitality are now dead in the world.
The emergence of the new Zimbabwe seemed to a parallel the decline
of the western democracies, who having sold out Rhodesia to the
communists, deserved no better. Political correctness rules. Bill
Clinton is president of the United States. The states have thrust
their constitutional prerogatives at the central government, in
exchange for a share of the loot. Property is routinely seized and
guns are confiscated. No, we most certainly did NOT win the cold
I wish these arrogant blowhards in London and Washington had to
live among the people they purport to love so much. The African
tribesmen to whom the politicians handed over Rhodesia had one very
important quality in the eyes of the diplomats who shill for the
multinationals: they are unsophisticated, and in the case of their
carefully selected "leaders," they are quite venal. Mugabe
has protected his new found wealth by using the national army to
defend his holdings in the Congo, by purchasing a castle in Scotland,
and by the massacre of the Matabele tribe — the services of North
Korean "advisors" carry a price tag. Yet Mugabe was so
very popular in the west until he committed the one unpardonable
sin, he expressed his distaste for homosexuality. Perhaps the Matabele
would be alive today, had they been gay. Simple African tribesmen
of the heterosexual persuasion are quite expendable however; the
world proved it's view on that by watching the mass murder unfold
in Ruwanda, even though a principled Canadian general had raised
all kinds of warning flags well in advance.
it's time for a trip back to the dark days of the Chimuranga,
and the "Year of the People's Storm." Whole areas of Rhodesia
had been rendered uninhabitable by the terrorists, not as feeble,
intellectually lazy western journalists wrote, "by the war."
As if the war itself did the murdering. No, it was the fine specimens
we see referred to now as the "bush war veterans," who
tortured whole villages full of people to death "pour encourager
les autres." This communist reign of terror begins the
first day of any war in which you find them — terrorize the people
into subjection, then "swim like fish in the sea." The
fact that the villagers will feed anyone who sticks a gun in their
face and pretend to like it, escapes most people. The meanest fish
swim best but that fails to prove that minnows actually want sharks
in their neighborhood. Western journalists assumed the villagers
liked the communists because the communists ultimately had their
best interests at heart. Only a very foolish black African would
support the Smith regime according to the standards of western political
thought. The fact that Africans were eating regularly in Rhodesia
and South Africa, both under white rule, was of significance only
to the African people sitting at table. Westerners, who've never
missed a meal, assumed that hunger was a small price to pay for
"freedom." Western taxpayers thus found themselves training
counter-terrorist forces at home, who would ultimately be used against
them, while simultaneously paying for communist insurgency overseas.
With never a whimper of complaint — just open that checkbook and
keep on trucking. Wasn't it Mao Zedong who said, "There is
a sucker born every minute."
Commonwealth countries brought in troops and police and announced
a truce. Jimmy Carter, ultimately dethroned by Clinton as "worst
president ever," supported the truce. The only problem with
the truce was rather a big one: it was only enforced by one side.
The terrorists were plying their vicious trade among the villagers,
who were taught to chant "Voteri ne Jonghi," vote
for the cock, Mugabi. They were tortured and beaten, subjected to
executions and extortion, while the Commonwealth soldiers enjoyed
the invigorating environment of the Rhodesian Army battle camps.
They, the soldiers at least, got a long with us quite well. But
their presence tilted the war against us. They enforced no truce
on the other side. We sat in our camps while the communists carved
out an election victory with their bayonets.
there is talk of British troops going in to save the white farmers.
Why? The Brits abandoned their own citizens once before, why not
now? When the Brits talk of intervening, they are talking American
logistics and those same old overworked red berets. Perhaps their
guns work now, unlike in Kosovo. They can button on their uniforms,
the ones Drudge claims are made in Germany; hop in their American
planes and go off to make a mockery of themselves — these heirs
to empire. Kipling is dead — these modern troops are more experienced
at police actions in white countries, suppressing the politically
incorrect or freedom loving victims of the third way, then duking
it out with the "Fuzzi Wuzzis."
who imagine they will benefit by association with Britain and America
should take a good look at Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. They should ask themselves
how on earth can such a marvelous and fertile place be teetering
on the brink of starvation. They should consider very carefully
the cost of friendship with the greedy, insatiable and totally amoral
predators who have usurped the positions of power in the "free
Mr. Peirce fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian
Smith side, of course).