May 18, 2008

Darfur v. Zimbabwe: Is U.S. Foreign Policy Just an Elite Plaything?

In my new column, I compare the interest level in two African disasters of equal lack of strategic important to the American national interest:

Obama has, however, done a nimble job of exciting the Stuff White People Like crowd by repeatedly acting as if he cares about Darfur, a god-forsaken expanse of arid grassland just south of the Sahara in western Sudan, where militias backed by the "Arab" central government in Khartoum have been attacking locals.

Darfur has become a cause célèbre among celebrities such as George Clooney and Matt Damon. Obama has been addressing fashionable Darfur rallies and hiring foreign policy advisers, such as Samantha Power, who are passionate about America getting involved in this huge bit of damn-all in the middle of nowhere.

Darfur’s usefulness as a foreign policy issue to Obama and McCain in appealing to the SWPL contingent is it’s utter uselessness—America has no national interest in Darfur whatsoever, so therefore, the thinking goes, we should get involved because it wouldn’t do us any good—thus demonstrating the purity of our intentions.

In contrast, virtually no celebrities have expressed any interest in "raising awareness" about Zimbabwe, a verdant country at a pleasant altitude in southeast Africa. Over the last decade, dictator Robert Mugabe has destroyed the economy and driven his subjects to the brink of starvation. As with Darfur, the U.S. has negligible national interest in Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, in contrast to Darfur, Zimbabwe doesn’t interest the partisans of purity because of the unfortunate details behind why it is now prostrate: In 2000, Mugabe unleashed his goons to beat up and steal the farms of the efficient white farmers who raised most of the food.

Several members of Barack Obama's inner circle of foreign policy advisers are leaders in the movement to demand we do something about Darfur. For example, in a 2006 Washington Post op-ed entitled "We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?" ...

Similarly, in an interview entitled "The McCain Doctrines" with Matt Bai in today's New York Times Magazine [May 18, 2008], John McCain volunteers that he's often thought about starting a war with Sudan, if only a way could be found to make it practical:

"I asked McCain if it was true … that he had been brought to a more idealist way of thinking partly by the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica. ‘I think so, I think so,’ he said, nodding. 'And Darfur today. I feel strongly about Darfur, and yet, and this is where the realist side comes in, how do we effectively stop the genocide in Darfur?' He seemed to be genuinely wrestling with the question. 'You know the complications with a place that’s bigger, I guess, than the size of Texas, and it’s hard to know who the Janjaweed is, who are the killers, who are the victims. It’s all jumbled up. … And yet I look at Darfur, and I still look at Rwanda, to some degree, and think, How could we have gone in there and stopped that slaughter?'"

Note that, although McCain likes military adventures, the simpler task of intervening in Zimbabwe to avert famine does not appeal to him at all. While McCain volunteered Darfur, the NYT’s Bai has to bring Zimbabwe up:

"Why then, I asked McCain, shouldn’t we go into Zimbabwe, where, according to that morning’s paper, allies of the despotic president, Robert Mugabe, were rounding up his political opponents and preparing to subvert the results of the country’s recent national election?"

McCain tries to spell it out euphemistically for the journalist why a white President of the United States is not going to depose a black tyrant who wrecked his country by persecuting productive whites:

"'I think in the case of Zimbabwe, it’s because of our history in Africa,' McCain said thoughtfully."

Well, not that thoughtfully—the U.S. doesn't actually have much of a history in Africa.

McCain notices his mistake and tries to make himself clear without actually mentioning the W-word:

"Not so much the United States but the Europeans, the colonialist history in Africa.'"

... What makes Zimbabwe so unsexy compared to Darfur is that in 1965 the British Colonial Office tried to give the colony of Rhodesia to its black majority. But its white population declared independence and for 15 years resisted an international trade embargo, building a substantial manufacturing base. Finally, in 1979, Margaret Thatcher organized the handover of the country to Robert Mugabe.

The new President devoted the next decade to slaughtering his tribal enemies, largely leaving the white farmers alone to feed the country. In 2000, however, Mugabe began to reward his supporters by telling them to drive out the white minority and steal their land. Not surprisingly, his bully boys proved to be worthless farmers and the country has teetered on the brink of starvation ever since. Mugabe's government has responded to the shortages it created by printing money, driving the annual inflation rate up to 165,000% in April 2008.

Since 2000, Mugabe has clung to power through three elections due to the support of the black South African government, which provides him with cheap electricity. ...

In contrast to Zimbabwe’s famous role in the defeat of European white rule, Sudan is a member of the Arab League and the government espouses fundamentalist Islam, so it lacks the black cred of Zimbabwe. Granted, Sudan's leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir's complexion isn't much fairer than that of the typical member of the Congressional Black Caucus. But that little detail gets lost in most of the Darfur coverage. ...

So, the racial taboos about criticizing blacks don't apply as much to the Sudanese Arabs. In the American politician's mind, they're just white people, more or less. But some of them are misled by anti-Semitism or Islamofascism or anti-Americanism, just like the Germans were misled by Nazism, So, it's okay to kill them. (Indeed, for neoconservative Darfur enthusiasts, killing Arabs is not a bug, it’s a feature.)

But killing Mugabe's goons? They're black. And they beat up white farmers. Oh, man, that's a whole different kettle of fish—lots of domestic political implications that nobody wants to touch. So few white American politicians are excited about getting involved on the side of whites being victimized by blacks. There's no domestic political profit in that!

To a white American politician like McCain, Zimbabwe is the Jena Six brouhaha writ large. As you may recall, the six star football players on the Jena H.S. team had been using their privileged position as local sports heroes to run amok for years, beating up people. But their coaches and fans kept getting them out of trouble so they could continue to star on the Jena H.S. football team.

Finally, the Six went too far when they kept stomping a single youth after he was already unconscious on the ground.

So, just like in Zimbabwe, you had a gang of black thugs outnumbering and beating up a white person. What was the upshot? Why Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al and all the media came to town and denounced the white people of Jena for their horrible racism!

It was hilarious, but you can see why even a war-lover like McCain wouldn't want to get involved in such a directly analogous situation in Zimbabwe.


My published articles are archived at -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

I suspect one problem with invading Zimbabwe would be how you settle the situation. Do you end up creating a separate nation, like in East Timor - a separate white nation? (Are there enough white Zimbabweans for that? Maybe white former South Africans can round out the numbers)).

A good new general rule, it seems to me, would be not to get militarily involved in humanitarian intervention if you're not willing to expend the miltary resources to see it through AND if you're not willing to use the military force necessary to achieve success.

This would've cut short the argument made by neocons that an Iraq invasion was a "humanitarian effort" to bring democracy to Iraq - just like we brought democracy to Germany and Japan!

If you're not willing to do to Country X what you did to Germany and Japan to give them democracy, then don't bother. And bringing yourself to do those things requires a genuine existential threat.

Moreover, how would we work with Darfurians(?) to bring them freedom? How trustworthy are they as allies? Are they willing to fight for themselves (unlike the Iraqis and South Vietnamese)? How easy will it be to distinguish friend from foe?

To be honest I'd love to send the military into Darfur with humanitarian aspirations. It would give us political cover for going into Zimbabwe (and probably, eventually, South Africa).

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia: The white population dropped from a peak of around 280,000 in 1975 to about 70,000 in 1997, and is likely to number no more than between 10,000-15,000 in 2008.

Where are the outcries of "ethnic cleansing"?

Mike Courtman said...

Zimbabwe's a bit of a funny one.

Although as you say, western celebs and politicians don't seem to be very interested in what's going on there, the media is. Stories about Zimbabwe's elections are constantly on CNN and BCC, which seems to part of the media's general obsession with elections and democracy.

However, I agree there is certainly a race-based double standard at work in foreign relations between Zimbabwe and the West.

In Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand there has been a fair amount of debate over whether to sent sports teams there.

Most sports tours have eventually go ahead, and many of the same people who opposed sports tours to South Africa in the 1980s, are apathetic towards, and in some cases supportive of, tours to Zimbabwe today.

Anonymous said...

"Where are the outcries of "ethnic cleansing"?"

Very good point which has been raised by several Afrikaner commentators in South Africa. In addition, 1.2 million whites have left South Africa due to racial discrimination, government-supported crime and general corruption and mismanagement (kid dying in hospital because the new AA black nurses refuse to wash their hands, so kid needs arm amputated. Mom goes to Hospital for checkup and comes home with kidney infection because AA black laboratory technicians don't sanitize the equipment. That kind of story on a daily basis).

What's happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa is white ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, we are talking about millions of people, and the ultimate hypocrisy is that the predominantly white media and the white governments are mum.

[Btw. in case trolls like Truth start harping on who should have been there first or not, most of southern Africa was not populated by blacks during white settlement, this has been anthropologically proven and verified, and if it should belong to anyone, then to the Bushmen who have been largely killed off by blacks. In addition those farms in black settlement areas had been negotiated and paid for. So John McCain is just accepting the black nationalist propaganda about white settlers at face value, which proves he is an ignoramus]

Anonymous said...

As we are reminded we have no right to be in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Increasingly as North America becomes less white white, we will also be reminded more often that we have no right to be there either. Ditto Australia & New Zealand.

To round things off we also have no right to remain a majority in Europe either.

Funny how that works.

Anonymous said...

There is another part of the narrative which is even more off limits than admitting ethnic cleansing of whites:

That fact that ZANU and the ANC only got into power with copious support from the US and the EU. There was no way in hell that they would have defeated the whites in southern Africa militarily without the comprehensive sanctions regime, the sports, academic, technological boycotts, the military sanctions, the oil embargo, the copious international arm-twisting and threats of human rights trials of white leader, something conveniently forgotten when the crimes of the ANC and ZANU began to surface, threats of financial strangulation and much more.

Whites had withstood all those sanctions and boycotts, fought off not only ANC and ZANU, but MPLA, SWAPO, ZIPRA and ZANLU, and in addition stabilized southern Africa with electricity delivery to enemies, food deliveries to enemies (in order to stave off the hungry hordes from the newly liberated paradises), but in addition fought to a standstill full scale soviet invasions backed by 4 billion dollars worth of equipment, chinese and soviet advisers and 50000 Cuban mercenaries (troops rented out by Castro). In spite of all this, South Africa was doing much better than it is doing now under the ANC which has generous international aid, full trade and huge investments.

It is in reality such a huge embarrassment for blacks that they would rather see these countries fully destroyed than be in any way reminded of their utter incompetence with respect to the white colonialists living there. Steve pointed this out at the end of his article.

The myth which is perpetuated by blacks in southern Africa and the US is that blacks somehow militarily defeated whites in southern Africa. But even Nelson Mandela warned his brothas that they should not cling to that illusion since it was not true. The ANC and ZANU were heaved into power by the US and Britain, and are now spitting in their faces.

In that sense Zimbabwe and South Africa are indeed US and British issues since it was essentially a squabble between white colonists, those in the US and the ex colonial masters in Britain forcibly disarming their compatriots in southern Africa and leaving them at the mercy of savages. To this day we really do not understand the motive, but listening to McCain it seems the colonists in the US don't understand it themselves, and I can only imagine that the ex-colonial masters in Britain must be kicking themselves by now.

Anonymous said...

"Funny how that works."

Not really. Contrary to what liberals and churches tell you, there is no morality about it, it's that simple. The ones telling you you do not belong where you are, usually have no rights there either. The best example are the Bantu in southern Africa. Most are tribes coming down from nigeria. They murdered the real locals, the bushmen and now just swamp out the whites, who have the same legitimacy as the blacks in southern Africa.

These black nationalists and liberals live off the kindergarden concept that Africa is for Africans, well because Africa is the dark continent and blacks are dark. Apart from that they have nothing really. And this simplistic argument is then used by real criminals like Mugabe and Mbeki to steal the assets created by whites for their own personal enrichment.

agnostic said...

What's a Dar for?

Anonymous said...

Comparing the foreign policy of the US with two small, free-loading countries like Switzerland or Finland is absurd and utterly disingenuous. In fact, it's pathetic and childish. Don't get caught up in trying to prove your 'paleocon' bona fides, Steve, with some sort of disdain for conventional thinking on foreign policy. When you do so, you come across as a flippant idiot.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused about the "Arabs" in Sudan as well. I've googled this a couple of times, and they all seem uhh... black. My guess is that maybe the folks in Darfur are the pure blacks, and perhaps the ones doing the persecuting are mixed black/Arabs, known locally as "Arabs" but quite distinct from the typical Arabs you see here in the Middle East or here in the U.S.

The Neutralist said...

The Neutralist Association of The US wishes to recognize the attainment of Neutralismo by Steve Sailer.

Well done.

The Neutralist said...

"Comparing the foreign policy of the US with two small, free-loading countries like Switzerland or Finland is absurd and utterly disingenuous. In fact, it's pathetic and childish. Don't get caught up in trying to prove your 'paleocon' bona fides, Steve, with some sort of disdain for conventional thinking on foreign policy. "

Not very much of an analysis. Just because they are small does not mean it would not work for us.

"When you do so, you come across as a flippant idiot."

Not a bad ad hominem. Don't just call someone an idiot, call them flippant. How can anyone come back from that?

Anonymous said...

Mugabe's been able to hold onto power in large part because of South Africa's tacit support. That may finally be ending, as South Africa struggles with an influx of Zimbabwean refugees, those that don't get eaten by lions along the way that is.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Comparing the foreign policy of the US with two small, free-loading countries like Switzerland or Finland is absurd and utterly disingenuous. In fact, it's pathetic and childish."

You know nothing of which you speak.

Switzerland and Finland are certainly not "free-loaders". They have healthy economies and - traditionally at least - had wise governments that - and here's the unusual thing - actually looked out for their own people. And they pay a price for their neutrality too:

Anonymous said...

Comparing the foreign policy of the US with two small, free-loading countries like Switzerland or Finland is absurd and utterly disingenuous.

I'm Finnish. Please tell me how we're freeloading.

Unlike the US, we actually do have a credible threat on our door and we have a strategy to deal with them: they can only get a wrecked country at a cost much higher than anything they could extract out of the place. Of course, for Americans this strategy would be suicide, since they only have the best possible defensive positions in the world, the best MAD deterrent in the world and the best military in the world.

Besides... if we were interested in freeloading, then perhaps we would join NATO now that there's an open invitation?

Anonymous said...

We do have some recent history in Africa, Steve, and some long-standing history with regard to West Africa, especially Liberia.

A lot of Africans resent the support we gave to non-Communist forces in Africa, and think we favored white settlers for a long time.

Any intervention we make into Zimbabwe is going to be unpopular with black Africans because of that and because of the slave trade. There are nuances (I think our primary aim in Africa was the desire to thwart the USSR, for instance, and the slave trade involved a lot of black Africans gathering slaves to sell to whites), but few black Africans are going to care about that.

Which is pretty much in keeping with your point, but still-we do have a fairly long history with Africa.

Planetary Archon Mouse

Anonymous said...

Great that Switzerland remained neutral in the Cold War. Good for them. Who cares? They don't count for sh*t. If the US had done the same, the world would be a different place. Hence, Switzerland freeloaded, as did, in any event, much of Europe. NATO is a joke.

Stopped Clock said...

Arabs can be pure blacks. It's a cultural identification, not a racial identification.
Hereis a map of all the Arabs in the world, according to the tribal calssification used by the Baath Party:

The western media's attempt to paint this war as a conflict between light-skinned Arabs and dark-skinned blacks is of course a politicaly correct lie. It's blacks on blacks.

Elzair said...

OT: Steve, have you heard about this new Russian study that suggests 7.1 million people died of famine in the US during the Great Depression? Pravda wrote an article about it. It is currently being posted and deleted on Wikipedia, like on this page. Is there any way to give a good estimate of the number of people who died in the economic hardship and the Dust Bowl?

Anonymous said...

If the US had done the same, the world would be a different place. Hence, Switzerland freeloaded, as did, in any event, much of Europe.

You are right, but not in the way that you think. If the US had told the Allies you're welcome and goodbye, they would have kept their militaries and martial values intact in the face of the Stalinist threat. Instead, they happily sent us the bill for their defense and re-made themselves into progressivist dystopias incapable of defending against African and Middle Eastern invasion.

NATO is a joke.

Right again in the wrong way. Muslims extend the caliphate to Europe and the Caucasus while the US and NATO fret over resurgent Russian nationalism, even though it's our natural ally in the fight against militant Islam.


Ron Guhname said...

One question: Are Darfurians Muslim, Christian, or indigenous?

Anonymous said...

If America and Americans had started off with a policy of not invading, not inviting, and continued with it, the US would today be a minor country with 13 (maybe 15 at most) states along the Eastern seabord.

Of course having gotten involved in international military affairs by siding with the French against the British just to survive at the start it might not have made it to independence.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you are just wrong comparing the US to Switzerland and Finland.

In the case of the former, a small, mountainous country without much natural resources to be grabbed/exploited, armed to the teeth, terrain favorable to defenders, and foreign policy that made Switzerland a prostitute towards whatever major power dominated Europe. I.E. a useful tool nearly occupied by whoever (Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin).

In the case of Finland, a ruinous war that gave pause to Stalin (1939), armed to the teeth, and a prostrate domestic as well as foreign policy. Finland had to do whatever the whims of Stalin and Soviet rulers afterwards, depending mostly on the balance of power between the US and the USSR.

Are you arguing that the US should prostrate itself before Islamists in domestic and foreign policy? For example banning Christianity and Judaism and promoting Islam as the State Religion?

I do not think you'd have many takers for a paleocon policy of bowing, scraping, and surrendering to Islam. [This is the Dem policy promoted in the Seattle and LA Times: "What Hitler Wanted Was Not Unreasonable" etc.]

Moreover, war has never been cheaper, and more achievable wrt dominance, given nuclear proliferation. Even poor countries can now kill thousands/millions of Americans and ruin American cities.

Somalia, Sudan (Osama's home in the 1990's) and other places offer a home, a base, a secure area to AQ and other Jihadis to organize attacks on the US and allies. See Afghanistan. Zimbabwe is a tragedy, but Mugabe is not playing footsie with AQ so he's of little interest to the US. Sudan is filled with Islamists, has played footsie with Osama in the past, as have the tribes in Somalia. So both are of interest. Probably we need various Green Berets helping various insurgent groups to gain info.

We have lots of great missiles and predator drones and stuff, but without intel to find guys like Zawahari and so on they're useless. We need guys on the ground working with locals to target AQ which is global (like us). This doesn't mean Iraq-style invasions but does mean lots of guys in places where jihadis are active.

Genocide is awful, but the US has to limit what it does to forestall attacks first/foremost against the US.

Anonymous said...

I think the brouhaha over the Jenna Six episode was a direct result of the excessive sentencing for the children--attempted second degree murder, while charging most of them as adults. Steve, ever the race baiter, omits this little detail because it let's him quip sarcastically about Sharpton And Jesse Jackson complaining about racism. Doesn't really work as well when you remind your readers about what caused the controversy in the first place!

Anonymous said...

Parts of Africa do have strategic importance due to their natural resources (e.g., oil in Angola, Nigeria, etc.), but it doesn't make sense to get involved in costly Iraq- or Afghanistan-style wars there. The French have managed to keep most of their former colonies open for business with limited, judicious uses of military force that usually don't get much press here.

Paradoxically, a President McCain would be less likely to engage in another Afghanistan- or Iraq-style war in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) because he is more likely to stay in Iraq, and if he does that, he won't have many troops free for other adventures. If a President Obama initiates a Vietnam-style abandonment of Iraq, he will

1) Have lots of troops freed up for another adventure.

2) Have a desire to cleanse America's palate of losing Iraq by engaging in a sort of war with the potential to make Americans feel good about themselves (e.g., saving Darfur!).

Of course, what seems like a clear-cut humanitarian mission in Darfur would evolve into something else once we got there, just like the initially humanitarian mission in Somalia turned into us picking sides in a struggle between tribal warlords. Mission creep.

I should also add that Obama's adviser Susan Rice is an idiot if she thinks that blockading Sudan's oil exports would be a smart idea. First, it would of course raise our oil prices even higher, as all global supply disruptions do; second, it would piss of the Chinese, who depend Sudan's oil more than we do (Sudan isn't among our top 15 sources of imported crude, though Nigeria, Angola, and Chad are).

- Fred

Anonymous said...

As a bit of trivia, the events in Rhodesia during the seventies inspired the plot of a science fiction novel titled "The Gray Prince".

It's not particularly good, though.

Anonymous said...

I'm an American leftist who considers the Zimbabwe fiasco one of the major humanitarian crises of the past decade, and find it frustrating and inexplicable that it hasn't gotten more attention in activist circles. It is true, as others have pointed out, that the media (especially British outlets) has given it a decent amount of coverage, but given that between a quarter and a third of the nation's population has been starved to death or driven out of the country, it's still ridiculously underplayed.

What's worse, when the Zim crisis does get a little coverage in activist circles, left-wing media outlets like Pacifica Radio actually trot out Mugabe spokesmen and apologists to claim that it's all race-baiting and that people are only interested because there are white victims (when the vast majority of Mugabe's victims have been black Africans.) You actually see this happen to a lesser extent with Darfur (except it's far lefties claiming a neocon conspiracy to blacken the reputation of an Islamic government in Khartoum), but at least there nobody really pays the arguments any heed.

J said...

Darfur has a cute story: Cruel slavers on horseback raiding native villages and taking away in iron chains naked women. Just like in "The Planet of the Apes", thirty years ago. On the other hand, everybody knew in his heart that Southern Rhodesia was doomed the day it became Zimbabwe. It was so previsible, it is so trivial.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of funny though. Steve is clearly smart--but he assumes his readers aren't very bright. I mean, is there truly an equivalence between white farmers getting displaced in South Africa and the conflict in Darfur which has been deemed a genocide by the US government? Is it truly the case that elites don't care about the former because of the race issue? Now say this cleansing of white farmers became as violent as that of Darfur. Would elites truly still not care? Steve is comparing one conflict with negligible human casualties and comparing it with another that involves hundreds of thousands of deaths and wondering why one isn't as much of a concern as the other when the answer stares at him in the face!

Anonymous said...

Heh. If you think Sadiq al-Mahdi looks black, try Googling "Dinka" or "Nuer." By the way, guess what "Sudan" means in Arabic?

Anyway, be ready for lots of talk about Darfur and all that once His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Barack Obama Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the Typical White People Empire in the Continent Formerly Known as America in General and Chicago in Particular takes his oath.

Oh, if you want some more fun, look up the signs of the "Dajjal."

Anonymous said...

It's all about the black people. Saving them, helping them, arresting them, electing them President, listening to their concerns, shaking our heads over them, and wringing our hands about them.

It's all about the black people.

Forget about Whites in America. Move along. Nothing to see there.

It's all about the black people. Because of America's shame: turning vibrant, successful people into dysfunctional people the world over.

What did you do White Nazis do to help a black person today? Nothing? Then you're just evil.

Black is the measure of all things: morality - social policy - fashion - politics.

It's all about the black people.

(Who is pushing this agenda?)

Anonymous said...


Anyone who calls Finland a freeloader is an idiot.

There's a saying among US Army officers, if we're in a fair fight. we aren't doing our jobs. We Americans are spoiled because when we fight wars, we always take the high ground-- in terms of economic resources, population, air supremacy, military force size and technology.

Finland doesn't have that luxury and the very best military leader of World War II was Finland's Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. That guy was a force of nature. The Finns were stuck between two totalitarian states and by force of arms and diplomacy, Mannerheim kept the Finns from being conquered by either the Germans or the Soviets. No Allied or Axis general did more to defend his homeland with so few resources.

Besides being a great warrior, he was also a decent man.

Hopefully Renny Harlin can get that Mannerheim biopic done. Everyone should know his tale.

Unknown said...

Zimbabwe is a nightmare. George Clooney, where are you?

These are brutal pictures:

Anonymous said...

You sound young. You are ignorant about Africa, and even Jena 6. Do some googling, at least, before commenting. If you're feeling really ambitious read David Lamb's, "The Africans". He's extremely liberal so you should find it to your liking, but you will definitely be better informed (it's also short). Afrikaners and other whites aren't leaving because some whim overtook them; they are being violently murdered. As far as the Jena Six, you've never seen a brutal beat down. Nothing can prepare you for how violent and animalistic such a thing is. Don't glance over the word "stomped". Seriously, take a minute and try to picture in your head just one huge, sneakered foot violently kicking in a human head. Charles Gooden Jr. was killed in a similar beating, but his was 15 on 1.

Anonymous said...

Zimbabwe is a nightmare.

But South Africa doesn't seem to be far behind.

Anonymous said...

Doug wrote: "You are right, but not in the way that you think." How do you know what I think? Of course America should've stuck it to the Euros (but that was a huge risk, after all, for the Euros were inclined to roll over and let the Soviets stick their fat dick up their collective ass). In any event, that doesn't change the fact that the Euros were and remain free-loaders.

Steve, what do you think is the IQ of your average reader?

Anonymous said...

In any event, that doesn't change the fact that the Euros were and remain free-loaders.

And who's stupid? Those who enable it and pay or those who don't say no to a free ride?

In any case, if you're the same anonymous, you still haven't explained how Finland is freeloading. Again, we have an open invitation to join NATO which would give the US an obligation to defend Finland (and funnily enough, few obligations for Finland to defend the US, so we're pretty stupid not to join). We haven't joined. We get no aid from the US. How, exactly, are we freeloading? Let's put it in other words: what, exactly, it is that you'd wish us to do to stop "freeloading"?

If the United States protects us by merely existing, what is it that we're supposed to do about it? Start plotting the destruction of the United States?

Anonymous said...

I've thought about your New York college football idea since you first proposed it and I don't think it would work. While there are individual famous people all over America, in most cities the only category of people who are known to millions of people nationwide are professional (and some college) athletes. New York has an entirely different level of glamour. The idea of a "modelizer" wouldn't work anywhere else in this country, even as fiction. The other American city filled with celebrities, Los Angeles, manages to get along without a professional football team. The business elites in New York and Los Angeles are less likely to be made up of former high school and college football players than in other parts of America. Half Sigma suggests that lacrosse is the sport that gets people ahead on Wall Street.


bigboy said...

Anonymous wrote: “Any intervention we make into Zimbabwe is going to be unpopular with black Africans because of that and because of the slave trade.”

The (trans-Atlantic) slave trade isn’t on Africans’ minds as much as it’s on the minds of African Americans, so I’d doubt it would be unpopular with them for that reason. Incidentally, European colonial nations bought Africans from other Africans for the New World, and Latin America received more Africans than the U.S.

Something else to consider is the possibility that it is unlikely any African from that part of Africa ended up in the New World. The slave trade in that part of Africa furnished the domestic market in that part of Africa or the slave markets in the Middle East/Arab world.

bigboy said...

Sleep wrote:
“Arabs can be pure blacks. It's a cultural identification, not a racial identification.
Hereis a map of all the Arabs in the world, according to the tribal calssification used by the Baath Party:

The western media's attempt to paint this war as a conflict between light-skinned Arabs and dark-skinned blacks is of course a politicaly correct lie. It's blacks on blacks.”

What is dark or light is relative. The Arabs of the Sudan (many of whom are simply Arabized people like many other Arabs) are in fact lighter on average than non-Arabs of Christian, animist, or Islamic background. In general the situation in Darfur has been painted as an Arab versus African conflict. The color of the participants has mattered less in the coverage than the Arab/non-Arab angle.

Your last comment makes no sense to me. What is politically correct about painting this conflict as one between Arabs (or Arabized tribes) and non-Arabs as opposed to black on black? The western media is always ready to report on tribal conflict in Africa, so they are not reluctant to deal with “black on black” violence there.

Further, if, according to you, Arabs can be “pure” blacks, then it is just as accurate to describe it as Arab versus African. Many of these Arabized people do not see themselves as black or African because of their religion, cultural orientation, and in some instances, appearance.

neil craig said...

In Britain it is pretty much the other way round since Zimbabwe was our colony & the white farmers of British extraction. Where the hypocricy lies is that for 20 years, while he was killing the other tribe, he was our token reforemed Marxist leader, who could do little wrong & awarded honourary degrees by British universities (since struck from the rolls). It was only when he started going for "our" farmers that he became, retroactively, a dictator.

I'm not convinced there is no American interest (or at least US corporate interest) in Darfur. Sudan was the first African country to sign up with Chinese rather than western oil companies.

Ther is also Tibet (which thank God the Chinese are to strong for us to "liberate" & in the last few days we have sen media idiots saying we should invade Burma.

One common factor in all these is that, on even a cursory inspection, the problems are more deep rooted than 2 minutes on TV would indicate & that whichever people we have elected as the good rebel alliance do not appear to be any nicer than the people we would liberate the locals from.

See also the recent acknowledgement that in Kosovo our KLA allies were allowed to kidnap & dissect between 300 & 1300 Serb teenagers to sell their body parts to western hospitals. eporting of an atrocity like that would merely cloud the simple stories filling the friendly evening news so it gets censored as firmly as Stalin ever did.

Unknown said...

Are you kidding? What do you know about Rev. Wright?

Your innately twisted and skewed views highlighted in this 'article' not-with-standing, must you impose your diseased psycho-dribble on an entire people?

What do you know about the Land of the Blacks----BEFORE euro-theft or euro-perversion of existentialism?

It has been said that...'it is better to sit quitely and be thought the fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.'

A goodly lesson for you.

Anonymous said...

I say the US dumps NATO and simply enters into an alliance with Finland. I want a nation that produces shooters like Simo Hayha to be on my side!

Anonymous said...

Are you arguing that the US should prostrate itself before Islamists in domestic and foreign policy? For example banning Christianity and Judaism and promoting Islam as the State Religion?


You give the paleo-conservatives free rein on those questions and you won't have those concerns: we won't be over there, and the Muslims and their cultural Marxist enablers won't be over here. In fact, they'll be jumping in the Atlantic and swimming to their homelands or walking a mile on their knees in tears to the Canadian embassy.

But that's not what you really want, is it? You want a globalist, multicultural empire with civil rights laws, income taxes, treaties and trade agreements with every shitheap country out there, Wilsonian crusades, speechifying at the UN, and on and on and on. We can end up exactly like the British Empire did: broke, socialist and populated by our enemies.

And now for this gem,

Doug wrote: "You are right, but not in the way that you think." How do you know what I think?

Because you just penned your thoughts on a blog post, genius.


Anonymous said...


It's worth noting that the powers that be (Rutgers? ESPN?) tried to promote the Rutgers (NJ's flagship state university) Scarlett Knights in New York City last year -- they had a giant billboard for the Knights' running back Ray Rice, etc. Unfortunately, after a great season in '06, Rutgers underwhelmed in '07. If the team can be top tier consistently for a few years, it might get more popular in NYC.

- Fred

Anonymous said...

Instead, they happily sent us the bill for their defense and re-made themselves into progressivist dystopias incapable of defending against African and Middle Eastern invasion.
The invaders didn't have to use force of arms to invade....just as all the recent immigrants to America (legal and illegal) didn't have to either. In both cases its a willed political decision taken by powerful agencies. When you talk of freeloading and sending a bill I think that isn't the truth either. Instead I think that having the European NATO nations militarily weak and subordinate was precisely what Uncle Sam (i.e. the powerful interests that formulate Uncle Sam's policies) wanted, and probably still wants. The Balkan's war demonstrated conclusively what NATO really stands for. It's a blunt instrument intended to enforce PC. NATO sided with the Islamic world in a western/Islamic conflict. I would advise Finland and Switzerland to stay well away from NATO. I'd say the same thing to the people of the US. It's not right that the people of the US should be asked to sacrifice their blood and treasure over some internecine squabble in greater Slobodia, but NATO membership calls demands exactly that.

Anonymous said...

I would like to blow the British trumpet and point out that Britain is not a free loader re NATO and shouldnt be lumped in with the Euros (as someone called them). We always held our end up pretty well in military spending and provided a full spectrum of forces, land, sea and air to the alliance.

If anything, one could argue that we too are subject to the freeloading of other Euros. Assuming a conflict that fell short of going nuclear, Britain was always less likely to be invaded than any mainland state. Sure, we wouldnt have wanted to see the whole of Europe overrun by the Soviets, even less than the US would, but it was always more of a danger to W.Germany, France etc than it was to us.

The last hundred years has been a disaster for us. We fought in WW1 and WW2 in alliances much like NATO and each time we were worse off despite ending up on the winning side. Each time having alliances because we couldnt defeat an enemy alone, an enemy who we wouldnt have had, if we hadnt been part of the alliance in the first place. Most notably in the case of WW2 in 1940, all our partners were out of the game so we had no need to participate further - but we did!

Perhaps we should have done a Switzerland from 1914 onwards, we might have been far better off.

Anonymous said...

What a great post by the commenter Anonymous above. Too bad no one else cared to note the quality of the post.

This thread is explicitly racial in nature yet none of the later posts commented on the issues raised by that anonymous post.

I have seen this before here. Some commenter will leave a devastating post that simply obliterates the liberal order at the philosophical level...and then no one else here comments. Oh dear, better not go there! There have actually been a few threads in the past here that were so "hot" that only one person or none at all commented.

That goes to the essential power of liberalism. Most conservatives are to a great extent liberal. And they themselves cannot bear to part with many liberal orthodoxies. This type of "conservative" thinks that they can pick and choose from a buffet of liberal shibboleths and still preserve their civilization. They are wrong.

Quote from Anonymous:

"It's all about the black people. Saving them, helping them, arresting them, electing them President, listening to their concerns, shaking our heads over them, and wringing our hands about them. Black is the measure of all things: morality - social policy - fashion - politics. It's all about the black people. (Who is pushing this agenda?) 5/19/2008"

...yes, indeed! Just what exactly would white liberals do today without non-whites on the planet as a pet project? How then could white liberals justify their existence? Because white liberal existence is based on lifting up non-whites, it's a reasonable question.

What if you took away that entire mission? What if you stuck white liberals on another earth-like planet with no other race of humans. Then white liberals would probably try to lift up the animals to be on an equal level with humans. Some would argue that is already being attempted here.

But the real answer is that white liberals would have no significant meaning in their lives without non-whites to "improve" and other whites to demean. White liberals get off on both actions. It's an orgasmic twofer for the sick white liberal psyche if they can demonstrate their compassion and at the same time demonstrate their superiority over lesser whites in a single act: lifting up the "oppressed" ---- whether it be a minority or an endangered polar bear.

And as far as "who is pushing this agenda"...well, liberals are created, not born. And if the readers haven't figured out by now that media control means control over the past, present and future of the society, then the readers are never going to figure out anything.

Anonymous said...

"I'm an American leftist who considers the Zimbabwe fiasco one of the major humanitarian crises of the past decade, and find it frustrating and inexplicable that it hasn't gotten more attention in activist circles. "

Ha ha ha ha ha, then they would have to admit that it was a mistake to drive out Ian Smith and UDI. I guess Rhodesia was better than Zim. The corollary is that it was a mistake to drive out the Afrikaners in South Africa. I guess apartheid was better than the "New South Africa".

Maybe you could have asked the whites there WHY they act the way they do before forcing them out and causing this humanitarian disaster in the first place. But you know, this arrogance of the liberals is something I also find at work. Usually the managerial pseudo-elites at HQ portend to know more about what normal employees do than the employees know themselves. Of course in reality its the other way round.

Anonymous said...

It's not just a few farmers who are being squeezed out:

3000 have been murdered.
The famer population has dropped from 80000 to 10000, barely enough to feed the nation and even those numbers are dwindling. This is a direct result of ANC agression towards them
whites murdered: 35000
white women raped: 70000
whites emigrated: 1.2 mio

Considering there were only 4 mio. whites in South Africa, percentage-wise that's a huge issue. Compared to the US (60% white * 320 mio=192mio) that would amount to:

144000 white US farmers murdered
3,36 mio white US women raped
1,68 mio. white US citizens murdered.

I think with those kind of numbers there would be a state of emergency in the US.

Robb WJ Ellis said...

I lived in Zimbabwe for 34 years, finally leaving in disgust 10 years ago. I am white.

Not long after Zimbabwean independence in 1980, I joined the Zimbabwe Republic Police and I served for 4 years.

In those 4 years I witnessed horror that I never hope to see again.

I was based at various police stations (as a prosecutor) throughout Matabeleland during the Gukurahundi - a Mugabe-ordered massacre of between 20 and 30 thousand Matabele people by a North Korean trained brigade.

I was made to feel decidedly unwelcome when I had virtually caught the Fifth Brigade in the act.

I left the police in 1985, and left the country in 1998.

I wrote a book of my experiences in the ZRP during the Gukurahundi -

The problem in Zimbabwe right now is that no one has the bottle to stand up to Mugabe and tell it like it really is.

He is invited to all manner of summit - against the EU travel sanctions - and then given the floor! Why?

No one wants to take him on - and so he is given all the room he needs, blames all his woes on the West and the white man - and claims that they is a plot against him. He will not be held accountable for his own shortcomings, and now that the people have indicated that they have no need for him anymore, he has upped the ante and threatened to go back to bush and defend the country, the land, the chimurenga (the bush war that brought him to power).

The UN are powerless. The AU are useless and SADC has no guts.

I reckon that Mugabe will probably remain in power until he dies, and then anyone of his ZANU PF party will scrap with each other for the right to rule.

Morgan Tsvangirai will be side-lined, just as Mugabe did to Joshua Nkomo in the late 1980's.

And for what? To rule a dust bowl?

For Mugabe to have made Zimbabwe a success, when he took over in 1980, he didn't need to change a thing.

Not one thing!

But he fiddled and he manipulated in an all-out effort for self-enrichment.

The man is demented, a coward and a failed despot. Could there be anything worse that he can do?

BTW, I run various sites all about Zimbabwe:

Best regards

Robb WJ Ellis
The Bearded Man

Unknown said...

The bearded man is one mans opinion..heres another

Smash Neo-Colonialism! Victory to Mugabe, Zanu-PF!
Military strategy presupposes political aims. All military problems
are political, and all political problems are economic. Kwame Nkrumah,
Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare


In 1963, the government of Ghana, led by President Kwame Nkrumah,
moved a motion to the United Nations Security Council. The motion
stated that Britain should not hand over the British military, with
massive amounts of British weapons, and a well equipped British air
force to the illegal European settlers in Zimbabwe. The illegal white
settlers made up less than 5% of the population of Zimbabwe, called
Southern Rhodesia at the time. This group of settlers, governed by the
Rhodesian Front Party (RF), which was the Dominion Party, avowed to
established a �white dominion,� consisting of Zimbabwe, parts of
Zambia (copper belt) and Katanga (the richest province in Congo), on
the apartheid model of South Africa, and to link with Portuguese
Colonialism and apartheid South Africa.

Britain was accustomed to stealing the resources in these locations
and therefore vetoed the resolution to stop the arms handover, and
armed the illegal settlers in Zimbabwe, giving them airplanes that
were a threat to newly independent African states in the region. This
was because Britain saw the illegal white Dominion Party, under Ian
Smith, as the most feasible organ for continued theft of Africa�s
resources in that location. We can clearly see the economic motive
behind Britain�s decision on who to arm.

President Nkrumah urged the Independent states of Africa �to take the
initiative of their own defense and that of the people of Zimbabwe.�
On 19 November 1965, he �Requested the Secretary General of the OAU to
convene a meeting of defense Ministers and military chiefs of staff to
plan ahead realistically to meet the danger which at the moment
threatens Africa� and �Wrote to African heads of state proposing the
signing of a Treaty of Mutual Defense and Security.� President Nkrumah
also trained soldiers from Zimbabwe, in Ghana, to go back to Zimbabwe
and fight against the
racist illegal settler colonial state of Southern Rhodesia, with arms.
This training was given by the Ghana Armed Forces, not only to
combatants in Zimbabwe, but throughout Africa, that were fighting
against Colonialism and foreign domination.

Africans in Southern Africa organized themselves into fighting forces
and made the ultimate sacrifice, their blood, to defeat the European
settlers and forcibly take over political power throughout Southern
Africa. In Zimbabwe, after a 14 year bloody war, the Ian Smith led RF
government was defeated, in 1980. In Angola the MPLA (Popular Movement
for the Liberation of Angola), with Cuba and SWAPO (South West African
People�s Organization) , defeated the Portuguese military, the
Apartheid South African military, and their surrogates, UNITA and
FNLA, and freed Angola and Namibia.

Emergence of neo-colonialism

European Colonialism, entrenched into Africa from the time of the
Berlin Conference of 1884, was finally defeated with the coming into
political power of the African National Congress in South Africa in
1991, influenced by the armed struggle of the ANC�s Umkhonto We Sizwe
and the PAC�s Azanian People�s Liberation Army.

European Imperialism had to reshape itself to maintain its economic
interest in Africa; this was to be led by the USA. In 1960,
democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba�s
government was overthrown and he was assassinated. According to CIA
station Chief for the Congo, Larry Devlin, Mobutu was promised, by the
CIA, US support to launch an overthrow of Lumumba�s government. Also
according the Larry Devlin, US President Eisenhower sent him
instructions to assassinate PM Lumumba. He cited
US access to the Congo�s cobalt (the raw material for producing jet
engines) as one of the important factors in arming Mobutu, and
overthrowing and assassinating Lumumba. Another CIA backed overthrow
was launched in Ghana on 24 February 1966, by traitors and paid agents
within President Nkrumah�s military and police force. This was in
retaliation for Nkrumah�s moves to secure control of the resources of
Ghana for its people, and his work to free and unify the rest of
Africa from Imperialism. Along with the publication of his famous
book, Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, which exposed US
neo-colonialism as the number one enemy of Africa and called for its

In fact, US military aggression, facilitated through the CIA, used
financing and distribution of arms to traitors in Africa as the
principle means of securing control over Africa�s resources. Between
1963 and 1971 seventeen African states have known successful coupe
d�etat...� And, Africa has had more than 60 successful coups since
independence (1952 Egypt�s Monarch was overthrown)] ...Over 30 out of
Africa�s 51 independent countries have experienced at least one coup
and 14 have had more than one.� Reports Nigeria Tribune, Thursday, May

This is how US Colonialism has come to dominate Africa, or rather
America�s [new] Colonialism; Neo-Colonialism. According to Kwame
Nkrumah, �foremost among the Neo-Colonialists is the United States
which has long exercised its power in Latin America.� In 1961, at the
3rd All African People�s Conference held in Cairo, Egypt, African
Heads of States, liberation movements, revolutionary pan African
political parties, and African Trade Unions condemned �the US, Federal
Germany, Israel, Britain, Belgium, Holland, and France [as] the main
perpetuators of neo-colonialsm.�

Neo-Colonialism is an alliance between European and US Imperialism and
the indigenous �anti-people�s class;� the most corrupt, immoral,
unprincipled, greedy and selfish class of Africans. This is the class
that facilitated the man hunting, murdering, buying and selling of
their own kind in exchange for European manufactured goods, under the
organization and economic control of the European capitalist class
(Slavery). This is the same class that facilitated the massive robbery
and exploitation of Africa�s wealth and labor under the direct foreign
political and military occupation of Africa by colonial Governors and
soldiers, through the policy of �indirect rule� (Colonialism) . Today
they allow EU/US companies to control and
steal the most valuable resources in Africa, while they facilitate
foreign domination and exploitation over the citizens (Neo-
Colonialism) .

Nkrumah states, �the danger to world peace springs not from the action
of those who seek to end neo-colonialism but from the inaction of
those who allow in to continue.�

The struggle for Zimbabwe

Today we see Zimbabwe being attacked by US and British media
terrorism. Their attack is under the guise of bringing �democracy� to
Zimbabwe, led by US imperialist fronts like, the National Endowment
for Democracy. In reality what they mean by democracy is �bourgeois
democracy.� According to Nkrumah, under bourgeois democracy, �freedom
is confined to the political sphere, and has no relevance to economic

Many Africans have been deceived by the imperialist doctrine of
bourgeois democracy, as a result of constant imperialist propaganda.
Lenin said that dialectics show ��under what conditions [opposites]
are identical, transforming themselves into one another�� This can be
applied to Zimbabwe�s elections to determine what conditions take free
and fair into the category of un-free and un-fair. The imperialist
assault on Zimbabwe�s economy, using US/EU sanctions, has created mass
poverty and hunger within Zimbabwe. The imperialists have invested
massive amounts of capital to develop a surrogate force within
Zimbabwe, the MDC. Imperialism and its surrogate, the MDC, have
harmonized their propaganda to blame Zanu-PF for the hunger and
poverty created by the MDC/US/EU sanctions; all financed by the US/EU
capitalist class. They have also conveyed to the people that voting
for MDC, the surrogate of the US/EU, is the key to stopping the
economic assault, and the resultant hunger and poverty. Imperialism
controls the productive forces in Zimbabwe (mines,banks, industries)
Zanu-PF is making a move to control those very forces with the
indigenization and empowerment policies. Under these circumstances,
imperialist aggression and infiltration, economic sanctions, media
terrorism, and antagonism over the productive forces, Zimbabwe
elections can not be considered free and fair. In reality Zimbabwe
represents the front line in Africa�s just war against US led neo-

US imperialism is playing a vicious game on Africa. They use military
aggression and CIA overthrows to gain control of Africa�s resources.
They put a vassal class in power over Africa�s people to facilitate
the expropriation of Africa�s resources and the exploitation of
Africa�s labor. They confine African political activity to voting on
who will facilitate our exploitation for American Imperialism. They
attack revolutionary and progressive forces, using bourgeois democracy
and terrorism
propaganda, to establish moral authority. They disguise American
imperialist puppets as independent leaders.

Zimbabwe is endowed with Uranium, Platinum, Chrome, Gold, Diamonds,
Methane Gas, Coal, asbestos, copper, nickel, iron ore, tobacco, and
cotton. US imperialism sees Tsvangarai�s MDC as the weapon to stop the
people of Zimbabwe�s advance on these valuable resources.

Morgan Tsvangarai and the MDC are tools for imperialist robbery in
Zimbabwe and this is why the US and UK are hell bent on the
destruction of President Mugabe and the Zanu-PF government in
Zimbabwe. They will not succeed in their nefarious plans.

Zanu-PF strikes imperialism

President Mugabe has seized the land from under a European Settler
Colonial State for the first time in history. This is unprecedented
and one of the greatest accomplishments in modern history. It also
exposes the hypocrisy of settler colonial occupations in Namibia,
South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, North America, and
Israel, posturing as champions of democracy. Native Americans in the
US and Aborigines in Australia clearly have no vote on how they see
fit to control their own land and resources, which is real democracy.

President Mugabe has also instituted indigenization and economic
empowerment policies in Zimbabwe. Policies which are putting the
Zimbabwe people in economic control of Zimbabwe�s means of producing
wealth and economy by requiring by law that indigenous Zimbabweans own
at least 51% of the key resources, banks, and industries in Zimbabwe.
How would the imperialist react if this was done in neo-colonial Ghana

In other words, he is standing up to US Neo-Colonialism and saying NO
to the status quo. This is a great example for all of Africa and the

Imperialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid

The enemy is becoming desperate. They have sent a House Slave, Jendayi
Frazer, to Southern Africa to make ridiculous and unfounded
statements, which have been rebuffed by her white masters in
Washington. But we all know she has to show more hatred for African
freedom fighters than common sense will allow, to maintain their
trust. She has even been threatening African leaders who won�t attack
President Mugabe enough, to satisfy her master, George Bush. She is
truly a �cat�s claw� for Neo-Colonialism and White Supremacy.

They are using white racist and imperialist controlled South African
labor organizations to try to stop Chinese weapons and commodities
from reaching Zimbabwe and pressuring SADC governments not to allow
Chinese ships like the An Yue Jiang to land on their ports. They do
this as if America and Britain never armed their illegal apartheid
state to commit mass murder and torture women and children with
electric shocks, while they, even as I type right now, their hypocrisy
from on top of stolen land, drenched with African blood. America is
the number one weapons seller in the world with 30% and Britain is
number six with around 13%, China is a distant tenth with 2%.

The Apartheid Democratic Alliance, spokesman Coenraad Bezuidenhout, is
even attempting to demonize China and sabotage their South African
trade by calling for an air embargo against Chinese cargo planes,
while praising Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa for �leadership and
courage.� This makes us remember when apartheid Minister of Defense
Magnus Milan and Foreign Minister Pik Botha dressed up mercenary and
mass murderer Jonas Savimbi in a pastors robe and paraded him through
the white house and on western media as black Jesus Christ, the savior
of Christianity, while Ronald Reagan gave him stinger missiles to
shoot down government airplanes in Angola.

What has changed since Morgan Tsvangarai and other MDC officials were
deported from Zambia for meeting secretly with Freedom House, a US-
funded organization headed by former CIA and FBI agents. Have they now
found religion like Jonas Savimbi did before going to get stinger
missiles from Ronald Reagan? Or is it the 71 million dollars in
financial support given to Zambia by USAID. The same USAID that funds
and advises opposition NGO�s and political parties in Venezuela, for
�psychological operations�
(PSYOPS), and the creation of polling companies in Venezuela like the
ZESN in Zimbabwe.

The mouthpiece of American economic thinking, the American Wall Street
Journal, published an article by the assistant editor, Kirchick,
titled �Arm Zimbabwe�s opposition� stating that �America has chosen a
side in this war. Perhaps it�s time we help it fight��

A Herald article titled, �See Tsvangarai for what he is,� made it
plain when it revealed that according to the US State department,
Zimbabwe ��poses a continuous and extra-ordinary threat to the foreign
policy of the US,�� and its allies. And US foreign policy, as we all
know, is about global dominance over people and their resources.

Dr Motsoko Pheko, former president of the Pan Africanist Congress of
Azania, stated,

�Fundamentally, Zimbabwe's problem is about who must control the
riches of Africa - its indigenous people or its former colonialists.
Sanctions and funding for "regime change" by Britain and the US are
naked imperialism��

It�s time for African Liberation forces to �stand up� and defeat of
Neo-Colonialism, the number one enemy of Africa. We must fight for
land and resources and not build castles in the sky of bourgeois

Akili Secka


Pan African Improvement Organization


1 May 2008