While a U.S. war against Iraq seems increasingly certain,
the United States does nothing to stop the
expropriation of white farmers in Zimbabwe by the
terrorist state constructed by the country`s black
Zimbabwe, it`s true, is far removed
from most vital U.S. interests, but since Washington
played a major role, through sanctions against Rhodesia
in the 1960s and `70s and through insistence on
Rhodesia`s transition to "democracy" in 1980, in
creating the current disaster, Washington ought to be
playing a far larger role in stopping what may yet turn
into the outright genocide of whites.
In a front-page article on the
Zimbabwe crisis last week, the New York Times
reports that the Mugabe regime is now in the process of
forcing 2,900 white farmers—what the paper calls "the
country`s most productive farmers"—off their land. Of
course, the Times is also careful to point out
that the land "was seized from blacks during the days of
British colonial rule," but the point is that
without the white farmers, the country today, in the
happy days of democracy, will be unable to feed itself.
For Zimbabwe`s White Farmers, Time to Move On, By
RACHEL L. SWARNS, August 4, 2002]
The United Nations
projects that some 6 million Zimbabweans, half the
country`s population, will face
starvation. That has not deterred the Mugabe
government from proceeding with
encouraging mobs of blacks in attacking white
farmers, throwing them off their farms, and murdering
both whites and blacks who show any resistance.
Mugabe himself has repeatedly
threatened to kill the whites and continues to insist
they will not be compensated for the land they "stole."
Meanwhile, it`s not the black
population that is getting the land stolen—excuse me,
liberated—from the whites. As the Times notes,
"Prominent politicians loyal to Mr. Mugabe now control
scores of fertile farms while many poor blacks are
stranded on arid stretches without adequate water or
sanitation." That, too, is among the fruits of
democracy in a country utterly lacking in any
history of or preparation for that particular form of
The Zimbabwe situation has been
mounting for some years now, and while Western
governments have spouted and spewed about human rights
violations in China, North Korea, Indonesia and the
Middle East, there has been virtual silence about
Zimbabwe. Great Britain has tried to get Zimbabwe to
develop a "responsible" land redistribution plan but
won`t support the current process, which is nothing more
than grand theft. The European Union has imposed
sanctions on Zimbabwe, which are not adequately
enforced, while the Bush administration, the Times
reports, has "criticized Zimbabwe`s treatment of its
farmers and diplomats … [and is] quietly pressuring
officials to reconsider their stance."
Meanwhile, the deadline for leaving
their land has come and gone for Mugabe`s white victims.
There is, quite frankly, not much
the United States can do at this point, other than
offer refuge for the white farmers expropriated.
While Mr. Bush
gushes over illegal aliens who broke
American laws to get here, he has
nothing to offer
white Zimbabweans whose dispossession is largely the
direct result of the
diplomacy of three U.S. administrations under Lyndon
Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter and their
insistence that Rhodesian "white supremacy" be
The current racial tyranny in
Zimbabwe is immensely assisted by two unshaken
assumptions in Western minds. One assumption is that
black leadership in Africa cannot and should not be
lambasted and subverted in the same way that white
leadership was previously. Racial guilt, fear of black
political backlash and sheer racial self-hatred by
Western white elites feed this assumption.
The other assumption is that,
because our elites really think that whites did steal
the land from blacks in colonial days, the expropriation
of whites today contains some justice, that the whites
really don`t have a clear and firm right to their land.
That was the premise of the New York Times story
itself, as it is of the British government wheedling for
a "more just" redistribution plan.
By the same logic, of course,
Americans have no rights to the land on which the
World Trade Center once sat, because we snookered
the Indians out of Manhattan for
24 dollars worth of beads and trinkets.
As multiculturalist ideology seeps
through the minds of Western elites—conservative
or leftist, Republican or Laborite—that inference
too will begin to bear fruit.
What really lies behind the
real-life dispossession, the coming famine and the
possible genocide in Zimbabwe is not just the criminal
ruthlessness of Robert Mugabe or the lack of preparation
for democracy of most Zimbabweans, but the sheer
degeneracy of the Western white world that insisted on
pushing Rhodesia down the road it is now traveling
and today is too frightened, too guilt-ridden, and too
weak to insist on pulling it back.
August 12, 2002