I was flipping through an old 1981 edition of the National Geographic (Vol.160, No.5, November 1981) this morning when I came across an article by Charles E. Cobb, Jr. entitled, After Rhodesia, a Nation Named Zimbabwe, and it brought back several memories.
Firstly, it reminded me of the time I visited Rhodesia (just before it became Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and then Zimbabwe) in order to complete a section of my Historical Atlas of Modern Europe and Africa which I was then writing, and of the terrible civil war that had raged. It was during that stay that I learned of a recent attrocity by Robert Mugabe's ZANU faction. They had rounded up the entire population of a black village which had refused to support them, cut off the lips of all the men in front of their women and children, forced the mutilated men to eat them, and then crammed the entire village into two of the larger huts before setting them alight and burning everyone alive to death. I could hardly forget that. Such attrocities were commonplace at that time for not only were the various black factions waging war against the white régime of Ian Smith but, in true Marxist fashion, also each other. I remember thinking at the time that if someone like Mugabe ever got into power he would destroy what was then viewed as one of the four most prosperous countries in Africa - from being almost totally self-sufficient in agriculture, producing 70% of its output, it todays lies in ecomonic ruin and starvation haunts its every village. Mugabe, who claims to be a Catholic too, was criticised by Archbishop Ncube who described him as "a fascist, fraudster, a liar and a godless murderer" (Sunday Herald, 22 May 2005). The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference in a press release on 1 August 2004 declared:
"The Zimbabwean situation of starvation and malnutrition, wilful political violence and intimidation, and the immoral use of food aid by the Zimbabwean government demands stronger and transparent intervention by African governments."
Not to mention European governments.
Secondly, it reminded me of the Swedish régime's incomprehesible association with the Zimbabwean dictatorship which has claimed untold lives of both whites and blacks and ruined the country economically - Zimbabwe has an out-of-control inflation rate equivalent to that of the Weimar Republic. A Swedish commentator encapsulates my thoughts on this matter:
"Things are quickly changing towards the better in Zimbabwe. Tomorrow, MAYBE Mugabe will sign a treaty with the opposition for democracy in order to end his reign of terror over his home country. Mugabe, who ruled his country with an ideology which resembles African Stalinist Bolshevism at many points, has been the dictator of Zimbabwe since 1980. It is good news of course that the globe will be a little bit freer and in all a better ball to live on for many people.
"The bad thing is that Sweden refuses to be honest about WHY Mugabe has been in power for so long. It is Sweden’s fault, and that due to our socialist government during the 70s and 80s which supported Mugabe’s way to power. Even after things started to act all strange in Zimbabwe and the promises of democracy wouldn’t be fulfilled Sweden still continued to dump foreign aid over the African dictatorship. The result is clear – Sweden prolonged Zimbabwean dictatorship and totalitarianism"
Robert Mugabe never hid the fact that he was a Marxist and proved it both before he came to power and afterwards. He has consistently shown contempt for democracy and human rights. Zimbabwe has been listed together such totalitarian régimes as Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran and Belarus.
It is of great regret to me personally that someone like democrat Abel Tendekayi Muzorewa did not come to power and steer Zimbabwe down a moderate course instead. Like Nelson Mandela who sought reconciliation between the races in South Africa after the apartheid régime was replaced by nationwide democratic government, Muzorewa could have overseen a peaceful transition of power and ensured the nation remained prosperous for all races. Instead, the West (incredibly) backed Mugabe and the slightly more moderate Nkomo (who lost the election after independence), with Sweden continuing to back Mugabe long after he had shown his true colours. Why? Well, for one thing, Muzorewa was a Christian, and Christians are anathema to Marxists and to Marxist governments.
In order to keep this essay short I am going to cut the chase and get to what I believe is the heart of the matter. I believe it is because a chord was struck in the Marxist-leaning régime in Sweden which had a gut-reaction, knee-jerk Marxist response - he was one of their own, irrespective of Mugabe's murderous heart and deeds. They both believed, albeit it, in differrent ways, what Nigel farage calls The Great Lie":
"The most dangerous politicians depend on the Great Lie. Once the Great Lie has been ingested, it readily and rapidly grows into doctrine. Then a political preference becomes a religion, its champion a demigod and any aberration heresy. The politician excuses himself for abominations because he has seen the way clear to that shining city upon a hill. He has a duty to follow that path and to shepherd or lash others onto it for their own good. The Great Lie is just this: one day, time will stop...for Marxists, [it is] the Worker State, for romancers, the Happy Ever After, for buyers of cosmetics, Eternal Youth, for childish idealism, John Lennon's Magic Roundabout Elysium where there are no countries, no religions (and hence, presumably, no customs or loyalties) and all the people live (half-)life in peace...It is, of course, irresponsible gibberish. It serves only to make life's rich and only occasionally disgusting stew...appear unsatisfactory and affords nearly infinite power to the man with the hastily scrawled treasure map...The leaps of faith whereby these were turned into the Great Lie, however, initiated centuries of totalitarianism and intolerance...As for Lennon's brutal nightmare world, by what grotesque means is its survival for more than a split second to be assured? Brutal regimentation and compulsory unisexing, I assume" (Nigel Farage, Fighting Bull, pp.232-233)
So what happened? The Swedish régime responded religiously to a fellow doctrinaire Marxist - it felt obliged to defend "one of its own" even after he had broken all the bounds of democratic propriety. Unless you ascribe ignorance to the Swedish government's failure to repudiate Mugabe and stop sending aid which was pilfered by the régime, there really is no other explanation, in my view, for I do not believe the government to be ignorant. Mugabe's little Hitlerite moustache and the red star of socialism/communism on the Zimbabwean flag (designed using the colours of Mugabe's ruling ZANU party) alone should tell us starkly that we are dealing with a ruthless Marxist/Fascist dictatorship. Even Olof Palme, who was supporting all the liberation movements with 'humanitarian aid' during the guerilla war against the Rhodesian régime, chose to ignore all the ghastly attrocities by his fellow Marxists. I wish he had been at the village I mentioned earlier on.
Violence has characterised Zimbabwe's political landscape since independence in 1980. Soon after taking power Mugabe unleased the Stalinist North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland (since he was Shona, and the Shona and Ndebele have always hated each other - that's why the Shona majority voted in Mugabe, because of tribal allegiances) and in some parts of the Midlands to purportedly weed out dissidents, an operation that left 20,000 civilians dead. Little has changed.
Not that Sweden is alone in its bad behaviour. With Britain giving Mugabe the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Bath in 1994, and liberal British and American Universities (Edinburgh, Massachusetts, and Michigan) giving the tyrant honourary degrees for "qualities of statesmanship" (Edinburgh), "quiet integrity" (Massachusetts) and "achievements" (Michigan), one wonders sometimes whether most of the Western governments have gone mad and whose boots they are licking in sucking up to this despot. So I am not singling out Sweden in order to pursue an agenda - I am pretty disillusioned with the new type of Liberal Fascism which seems to characterise the 21st Century West. It makes you wonder if they aren't all part of the same Marxist/Fascist cabal, doesn't it?
These truths need to be made clear in the urgent need for the de-marxification of Sweden and other nations infected with this totalitarian virus. The political scene is not black-and-white and if we are to have any sort of moral or ethical integrity we cannot fall back on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument if the two enemies are communists and fascists, for both are the same. The West's alliance with Communism between 1941 and 1945 to defeat Fascism got rid of one monster whilst lending credibility to another. It is time the "other monster" was unmasked. An alliance with mass-murderer Stalin might have been the only way of getting rid of mass-murderer Hitler but it has not, in the long term, served democracy because that moster has posed as a democrat too. He isn't. He's a fascist as well.
This blurring of the borders of democracy needs to be put right. Supporting murderers like Mugabe and his ilk just adds to the confusion and contributes to the poisoning of authentic liberal democracy (as opposed to "liberal fascism" which is what the Marxist-Democratic hybrid has created). The Swedish régime is not alone in this, as I have said, but it has without a doubt gone far farther than other Western régimes in prolonging the life of dictators who shorten the lives of their subjects. With the US and other Western régimes in Europe often supporting fascist governments, and Sweden supporting Marxist ones, they have, between them, boiled democracy alive. What a mess. It is high time for the Day of the Libertarian. And they are beginning to arise as people see how they have been duped.
