Deluded liberals all over the world can hardly contain their delight at the military coup in Zimbabwe which appears to have deposed the 93-year-old Robert Mugabe—but have deliberately ignored that his replacement is cut of exactly the same racial and political cloth, and that the “change of government” is merely yet another case of African tribal chiefs playing “pass the palace keys” rather than any actual change in that country.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper, for example, has run an article headlined “After Mugabe’s detention, we’re hoping Zimbabwe’s democracy has been saved”—ignoring the fact that Mugabe has won successive elections and was deposed by thoroughly undemocratic means.
The Daily Mail announced that Mugabe had been “humbled at last”—also ignoring the fact that a military coup had deposed him—something which that newspaper would never have gloated over had it happened in any European state.
The Daily Mail went on to describe how it was all Mugabe’s fault that Zimbabwe had been “bled dry”—as if the collapse of that African state was purely due to one man only.
This delusion—that it is somehow always “only the leaders” of African states which are the cause of corruption, backwardness, and the general social and economic collapse which characterizes that continent—is the direct result of race denial.
The incredible economic backwardness of Africa—as outlined earlier—is not due to “just one person” or a small “group of leaders”—but the genetically determined and fixed inability of the population of that continent to achieve and maintain European or Far East Asian standards of development.
Proof of this lies in the economic history of Zimbabwe itself. Under white colonial rule, the country was called the “bread basket of Africa” or the “jewel of Africa” and had a flourishing economy—even after it was placed under sanctions by the world following its “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” in 1965.
That paper said that the “period between 1967 and 1972 was a time that witnessed massive growth in the Rhodesian economy, despite stringent sanctions imposed upon the Smith regime.”
The sanctions “heralded the start of a highly successful industrial drive that was to see the Rhodesian currency and economy firm to record highs”—a fact, the paper said which “has often been used to ridicule the present Zimbabwean government over their claims that the so-called ‘smart sanctions’ are what have brought the economy to its knees.”
Under white direction, Rhodesian “capital was re-invested in expansion projects in the fields of energy, housing, manufacturing, farming and mining.
“As such projects came to maturity they in turn resulted in even more capital being available for redeployment, creating a vicious expansionary cycle. The closed borders and financial system was therefore conducive for the rapid expansion of the economy through the money multiplier effect,” the Zimbabwean newspaper admitted, before going on to discuss the collapse after “independence” (i.e. black rule) after 1980.
As mentioned earlier, all of Africa is an economic disaster zone, and only the deliberately blind will not see it, or admit to it. And only the maliciously blind will deny the obvious racial reasons for this state of affairs, and continually claim that it is “just the leaders” who are at fault—as if decades of “just the leaders” is the cause of Africa’s perpetual backwardness.
The reality of Africa is that these states are eventually just reduced to warlord-ruled enclaves—a reversion back to the tribal era—and endless battles over who owns the palace building.
Most often, the one tribal leader who can occupy the palace with enough soldiers, and subsist on European “foreign aid” welfare, can claim to be “leader” or “president”—until he in turn is deposed violently by the next tribal leader who manages to seize control of the palace building.
This is what is happening in Zimbabwe right now, and all those liberals who are cheering Mugabe’s demise are ignoring the fact that his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is exactly the same—and is actually notorious for a series of massacres of atrocities that put even Mugabe to shame.
Mnangagwa—now being hailed as Zimbabwe’s “savior”—is not known as “Ngwenya” or “crocodile” for no reason.
Mnangagwa has been a Mugabe cabinet minister 1980, and directed the Matabeleland massacre in the early 1980s which resulted in the mass murder of thousands of Ndebele tribesmen who supported Mugabe’s chief rival, the ZAPU party led by Joshua Nkomo.
Mnangagwa also played a crucial role in the mass anti-white attacks of the early 2000s when the Mugabe government expelled white farmers from the land they legally owned—and thereby crashed the last remaining economically viable sector of the economy.
In 2008, when Mugabe came second to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai in the first round of presidential elections, Mnangagwa came to Mugabe’s rescue, mobilizing the army to physically beat opposition supporters away from the polls—to such an extent that Tsvangirai pulled out of the second round.
Emmerson Mnangagwa, the “savior of Zimbabwe’s democracy,” reads a birthday message to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe at his 93rd birthday party, 21 February 2017.
There is therefore no reason at all to think—as the race-denying liberals do—that Mugabe’s fall will mark the “return to democracy” or “economic development” for which they hope.
Instead, all that has happened is that one tribal warlord has replaced another, and has seized control of the palace keys—the endless cycle of Africa which will continue until there are no more whites to provide the technology to build the palaces.