|
Lately the media has been obliged to carry a few home truths about the brutal, chaotic reality of post-colonial Africa. Mugabe has set his terrorist veterans onto what remains of Zimbabwe's white farmers in a cynical political move to retain support. That the destruction of the remaining white owned farms will mean the destruction of Zimbabwe's agriculture is too much of a long term consequence to figure in the mentality of the average African megalomaniac. This obviously includes Mugabe, once a celebrity amongst the liberal scribblers of the mass media and the jabberers of Western parliaments.
It seems as though the media commentators are actually shocked and surprised that African terrorists are resorting to their old occupation - terror - and are killing, beating and raping innocent, hardworking white farmer families, and wantonly destroying the farms. As if the testimony of all other post-colonial Central and southern African countries did not indicate that such is the norm. Those scribblers and jabberers of Western liberaldom share the burden of guilt for the destruction of Rhodesia and the present brutality against the remaining white farming families. Perhaps they are trying to assuage that guilt by feigning shock and horror.
Anyone with any common sense knew from the start that this terror and chaos would eventuate sooner rather than later. However, still unbeknown to the bulk of the media dependent is the identity of those who stand behind Mugabe. No, we are no referring to any Communists. The "red menace" and USSR (only nominally "communist" since the time of Stalin) served as convenient distractions to the really subversive forces that were and are intent upon building a world power structure. Those forces are collectively describable as plutocracy (the power of money).
DECOLONISATION
Prior to World War II plutocracy operated within the confines of Empires. With the increasing globalisation of capitalism, the plutocrats came to consider Empires, let alone nation-states, as restrictive anachronisms. Any borders or barriers (whether territorial or cultural) were and are regarded as hindrances to global commercial expansion.
Up until the end of World War II plutocracy operated within the old colonial empires. British bayonets upheld the Sassoon opium trade in China, and the mining interest of Beit, Rothschild, Oppenheimer and Rhodes in Southern Africa.
The aftermath of World War II fundamentally changed the world power structure. Britain and the other old empires were indebted and war wary beyond repair. America and the USSR stood as the major winners.
It was time to scuttle the empires and erect new power structure upon the ruins.
AFRICA
Hence, colonialist types such as those still controlling Portuguese Mozambique and Angola and South Africa and Rhodesia were regarded as obsolete. Further, such national entities did not fit into the type of new world economic order for which the plutocrats aimed. They had to be brought down, and the means of doing so was the use of "majority rule" as an issue.
The tactic was not new. The Anglo-Boer war was instigated by the plutocrats against the Afrikaners on the pretext of the political rights of the "Uitlanders", or non-Afrikaners who had been flooding the Afrikaner territories. The psycho-political war against the Afrikaners, Rhodesians and Portuguese colonialists likewise use d the ostensible issue of "political rights" (for the Blacks) as the means of bringing those nations down.
Useful idiots throughout the West were found in abundance to campaigning for "black majority rule", yet behind the human rights rhetoric stood the grim reality of plutocratic power politics. Just as the plutocrats had found Left-wing (including communist) movements as a means of bringing nations into transition from traditional rural economies to industrial economies, the power hungry tribal leaders among the myriad rival tribes were readily bought and steered in the desired direction by plutocracy.
In South Africa the drive against the Afrikaner was traditionally led by the Oppenheimer economic empire. Harry Oppenheimer was frank in his support for liberal, anti-Afrikaner causes He funded the liberal Progressive Federal Party. In 1960, as head of the plutocratic think-tank, the SA Foundation, he frankly stated his aim:
|
|
