Political indignation — how fast it moves these days! Or not. It
seems only yesterday that the whole of the United Kingdom and its
Commonwealth, echoed by the U.N. and the United States, was boiling over
with righteous fury about Ian Smith. Remember? He was the racist leader
of Southern Rhodesia, the bugbear who was trying to preserve undemocratic
rule in the region. The brave Freedom fighters out in the bush, led by
the impeccably democratic, liberal, etc., etc., Robert Mugabe, were
struggling to end the historical nightmare of racist domination by whites
and bring a new, enlightened age of true democracy to what they were
calling Zimbabwe.

This transmogrification was to be the climax of decades of furious
protest against the racist policies of the white folks down there. There
were political stirrings in Britain and the Commonwealth and even the
U.N., including sanctions; there were angry protests in European capitals
(London especially), parades, demonstrations. In time Ian Smith was worn
down and his rule was broken. The protests were vindicated and everybody
was pleased that Robert Mugabe’s ZANU party was taking over. The American
and British bien-pensant felt positively uplifted: from then on things
would be free and equal.

Zimbabwe’s road to freedom and equality opened up to a magnificent
vista of hope for the future. Mugabe and his cohorts gradually destroyed
the economy of their country with a series of half-baked Marxist
policies. After butchering those blacks in Zimbabwe who opposed the
domination of his Shona tribe, Mugabe pushed his armed forces out into a
civil war in the Congo, doing still more damage to his wretched people.
The familiar African cancer of corruption spread through his government,
with Mugabe himself leading the way. Not long hence he began to bawl
about taking over the white farms which almost alone have sustained what
was left of the economic life of the country, and “distributing” the land
to “veterans of the struggle” against Smith.

Now this policy has moved out of rhetoric and into reality, with the
grace note of encouraging the “veterans” (i.e. mobs of Mugabe’s ZANU
supporters) to attack the white farmers; several of whom were foolish
enough to resist. They were murdered with their black workers while
Mugabe’s police stood by complaisantly.

At Mugabe’s urging the white population of Zimbabwe are being treated
more or less exactly as the Jews were treated in 1930s Germany. Mugabe
has signaled his willingness to be rid of them altogether “if they do not
like” what is happening to them. In Zimbabwe’s capital Harare Mugabe’s
police also attacked opposition demonstrators — selecting whites for
particularly bloody brutality –and murdered black members of the
official opposition. The British newspapers have duly wagged their index
fingers at Africa’s latest black Hitler. British Foreign Secretary Robin
Cook and his underling Peter Hain — an old veteran of the anti-racism
demonstrations against South African apartheid and Ian Smith’s regime,
insist that sanctions are not the answer. Everything will be fine, they
say, when Zimbabwe has free and fair elections. Cook huffed and puffed
briefly before shaking hands with Mugabe. After telling the British to
mind their own business, Mugabe assured all and sundry that there would
indeed be elections when he got ready to have them. He said nothing about
“free and fair.”

With the mob rule and ZANU-backed goon squads now killing ballot
monitors in Zimbabwe, the prospect of fair and free elections under that
violent and racist government is now about as likely as a pogo-stick
journey to Mars. So the question remains: How is it that the racist
dictator of a British Commonwealth country conducts anti-white pogroms
and is treated by Britain and its Commonwealth — not to mention the U.N.
with tender loving disapproval, or what an unkind observer might call
craven obsequiousness? The streets of London, which once echoed with the
angry cries of anti-(white) racists like New Labor’s Secretary of State
Peter Hain, today resound with no greater noise than the queues of
passing traffic. The leaders of the Commonwealth wag their fingers, too
— not at Mugabe but at Britain.

According to them, this is all purely an internal affair, and no
concern of anyone else’s. Given the appalling human rights record of the
overwhelming majority of Commonwealth countries (with either Islamic
tyranny in the present style of Pakistan, or massively corrupt
dictatorship with a rubber-stamp parliament as their favored form of
government) this comes as no surprise.

As for Britain, this of course, is New Labor’s 21st century, and we do
things differently now. In the old clean-cut days of the twentieth
century (White) racism in Africa rated furious demonstrations, indignant
speeches in Trafalgar Square, and all of the anti-racist panoply trotted
out by Hain and his mates. There were loud and successful demands for
political action: sanctions, supplying the opposition with arms, that
sort of thing. The U.N. was also willing to join in — then.

In Britain’s wonderful New Labor 21st century things are not quite the
same. When an obviously sweating and terrified white farmer appears on
British television, pleading with the Europeans to stop protesting
“because we can sort this out ourselves,” no one sees anything odd about
that, or comments on the sub-text: “For God’s sake don’t do anything to
make Mugabe madder than he is already, or he’ll kill us all.” The
Commonwealth and the U.N., who were purple with indignation over the
“racist” Ian Smith and — more recently — over the ugly human rights
record of Pakistan, have fallen over themselves to
insist that Mugabe and his government are not really racist at all. Why?
Hain explained indignantly: because black members of the opposition have
been murdered and this is [sic] “much more important” than the murders of
white farmers.

One imagines a pro-Nazi apologist after Kristallnacht insisting that
Hitler was not racist because he had also murdered non-Jews in the night
of the long knives.

There is, of course, an explanation for the curious inaction of the
Commonwealth and the U.N. and the willingness of an “anti-racist” British
government to confine itself to words. The mildest (i.e. most cowardly)
verbal gestures have provoked Mugabe to paranoid howls about a white
conspiracy to “harm Zimbabwe.” Mugabe — this quondam darling of the
people who are now governing the United Kingdom, this fascist caricature
of a black ex-“freedom-fighter” — has in effect taken the white farmers
of Zimbabwe hostage. Do our politicians fear that if this ranting African
version of Adolf Hitler is provoked, he will unleash a wave of racist

Mugabe’s treatment of whites is already close enough to Hitler’s
treatment of the Jews in the late 30s. Like Hitler with the Jews, the
black dictator gibbers fantasies about the evil whites undermining his
country — to the cheers of his goon squads and the anxious tut-tutting
of the British Foreign Secretary. Could the anodyne response of a
politically correct New Labor be explained by the fact that white skin
color is the convenient object of Mugabe’s hatred and violence?
Eventually Blair’s somewhat embarrassed government announced that it was
(at least) freezing arms deliveries to Zimbabwe. Meanwhile Mugabe’s
assets in Britain remain untouched and available for purchasing arms

There is a story from the World War II, told by the Jews in Auschwitz:
Two Jews are being beaten toward the gas chamber by a brutal guard. One
Jew whispers to his friend, “Let’s jump him, get his gun, and fight back.
What have we got to lose?” The second Jew grips his friend’s arm
anxiously and moans, “Please! Don’t make trouble!” That plea, now echoed
by the white farmers of Zimbabwe, is guiding British policy toward the
black Hitler whose goons are robbing and killing them at will. What is
happening in Zimbabwe is bad enough. But the limp rhetorical response to
it from Britain and the U.N. (and, if it comes to that, Clinton’s
government) is degueulasse — enough to make you throw up.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.