[Tailz]

Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe tells whites to “go back to England”

THE man who calls himself “the Hitler of our time” and once said he was better than Jesus Christ is back. And you won’t believe what he said this time.

Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe, long known for his outspoken rants, has told whites who are still in his country to “go back to England”, as he vowed that those removed from land redistributed to black Zimbabweans would never be allowed to return.

Mugabe was speaking during the installation of a chief in his rural Zvimba home area, according to All Africa.

“The West prefers a weak leader who, they hope, would allow the whites to come back,” he said, speaking in Shona.

“They think if they intimidate us we will be cowed and allow the whites to come back; that will never happen.

“Don’t they (whites) know where their ancestors came from? The British who are here should all go back to England.

“What is the problem? We now have aeroplanes which can take them back quicker than the ships used by their ancestors.”

Mugabe, widely condemned for human rights abuses and rigged elections, regularly rails against whites and western leaders.

American President Barack Obama is the latest leader to draw his ire, with the eccentric president claiming the leader of the free world was “afraid of him”.

Addressing an audience of supporters, he said: “It’s your support which enables me with my small frame to instil fear in the likes of Obama.

“They invite all other leaders to meetings but say Mugabe cannot come and I wonder whether it’s my misfortune.

“In the past, when we attended these meetings, Western leaders would disappear once they knew that I was around.”

He continued on in his “tolerant” speech by explaining how Obama was afraid of him and the Western leaders of the world were trying to “intimidate” Zimbabwe into “allow[ing] the whites to come back.”

Last year, Mugabe used his opportunity to speak at the 68th UN General Assembly in New York to berate the United States and the UK for imposing “illegal and filthy sanctions” on Zimbabwe.

“Shame, shame, shame to the United States of America. Shame, shame, shame to Britain and its allies,” Mugabe said.

But that rant doesn’t come close to his most colourful quotes.

Celebrating his 90th birthday before thousands of people at a soccer stadium earlier this year, Mugbae urged the nation to shun homosexuality.

“God made men and women so they can bear children,” he told the crowd of more than 45,000 gathered for the celebration.

“We don’t accept homosexuality here.”

Other Mugabe gems include:
On Hitler: “I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for.”

On white people: “The only man you can trust is a dead white man.”

On being better than Jesus: “I have died many times — that’s where I have beaten Christ. Christ died once and resurrected once.”

God help us.

Ego?

[Rei Murasame]

The man has a point though, in fact he has several good points. Mugabe is repugnant and is oppositional to Britain, and he has awful policies, but has he actually said anything that is factually incorrect in those quoted statements? No, he hasn't said anything that is factually incorrect.

Furthermore, if the British mainlander people didn't want to allow those lunatics with their lunatic policies to take over Rhodesia, then they should have thought twice, and three times, before deciding that decolonisation was 'a good idea', and they should have thought three and four times before deciding to piss on the faces of white British colonists and onto Cecil Rhodes' legacy. But no, they wanted to be 'anti-racist', and they wanted to break off support, so that's what happens.

All of this comes back to how British mainlanders started to believe the rhetoric of the Soviet Union about 'racism', and self-inflicted a mortal blow against themselves as a result. And this which is happening in 'Zimbabwe' - or 'the country previously known as Rhodesia' - now, is the logical extension of that self-inflicted blow after a couple decades.

[Bounce]

The man has a point though, in fact he has several good points. Mugabe is repugnant and is oppositional to Britain, and he has awful policies, but has he actually said anything that is factually incorrect in those quoted statements? No, he hasn't said anything that is factually incorrect.

Furthermore, if the British mainlander people didn't want to allow those lunatics with their lunatic policies to take over Rhodesia, then they should have thought twice, and three times, before deciding that decolonisation was 'a good idea', and they should have thought three and four times before deciding to piss on the faces of white British colonists and onto Cecil Rhodes' legacy. But no, they wanted to be 'anti-racist', and they wanted to break off support, so that's what happens.

All of this comes back to how British mainlanders started to believe the rhetoric of the Soviet Union about 'racism', and self-inflicted a mortal blow against themselves as a result. And this which is happening in 'Zimbabwe' - or 'the country previously known as Rhodesia' - now, is the logical extension of that self-inflicted blow after a couple decades.

On being better than Jesus: “I have died many times — that’s where I have beaten Christ. Christ died once and resurrected once.”

I'm sure you don't believe this...

Britain lost its colonial empire because it became weak. It wasn't some explosion of moralist foreign policy you're playing it out to be.

[Rei Murasame]

On being better than Jesus: “I have died many times — that’s where I have beaten Christ. Christ died once and resurrected once.”

I'm sure you don't believe this...

I'm willing to believe that claim, after all the Zimbabweans have a traditional religion which may have some esoteric concept about 'dying' and 'being resurrected' in some kind of ritual. So that statement can make perfect sense in that context.

Mugabe is an intelligent man, he's not a dumb guy at all, so I will give him at least basic respect that is due to a strong guy who managed to become the master of that country.

Britain lost its colonial empire because it became weak. It wasn't some explosion of moralist foreign policy you're playing it out to be.

The two things happened simultaneously. Furthermore, Britain was not occupying Rhodesia in the direct way that you are making out, there was a white government there that Britain turned against and began to criticise and place sanctions on, in the hopes that it would fail.

So yes, there was a significant amount of petty-moralism involved. But people don't like to admit to having done that because it makes them look dumb now.

Look at this:

Under Mr Smith's system there will be white minority rule, where 220,000 white Rhodesians will enjoy privileges over nearly four million black Rhodesians.

Harold Wilson told a packed and solemn House of Commons the Labour Government would not be sending troops to deal with the crisis.

Instead he announced a full-range of sanctions including ceasing all British aid to and preferential treatment for Rhodesia, banning the import of Rhodesian tobacco and recalling the British High Commissioner.

Both Rhodesian opposition parties - the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (Zapu) have declared breakaway governments.

They have both called upon the British Government to use force to suspend the Smith Government.

Clearly when you 'become weak' and start imposing sanctions against your own side, it involves petty-moralism and it also involves drinking down Soviet propaganda. I've said before and will say again, this is why Harold Wilson should have been deposed in a right-wing coup, and Britain ought to have been placed under a military government of national salvation.

But that didn't happen, so this is what you get. The lesson is that the strong shall live and the weak shall die.

[pugsville]

The Idea that White rule was sustainable in Africa is just silly and unrealistic. The Empire was let go because Britain got democracy and the vast bulk of the population saw no point in paying the costs of empire for the benefit of a select few. Most colonies contributed extremely little to any Imperial Strength and were mostly a drain on Britain. The costs and casualiites needed to maintain the empire would not have been willingly supported by the British.

It would be a dictatorship solely for the benefit of the few. National Salvation, really just propaganda that would not have been accepted,

[Kapanda]

The Idea that White rule was sustainable in Africa is just silly and unrealistic. The Empire was let go because Britain got democracy and the vast bulk of the population saw no point in paying the costs of empire for the benefit of a select few. Most colonies contributed extremely little to any Imperial Strength and were mostly a drain on Britain. The costs and casualiites needed to maintain the empire would not have been willingly supported by the British.

It would be a dictatorship solely for the benefit of the few. National Salvation, really just propaganda that would not have been accepted,

Yeah, but "whites go back to England" from the "Hitler of our times" is not what Zimbabwe needs right now.

[Rei Murasame]

The Idea that White rule was sustainable in Africa is just silly and unrealistic.

Indeed, the weak hearts of British people could not sustain it.

The Empire was let go because Britain got democracy and the vast bulk of the population saw no point in paying the costs of empire for the benefit of a select few.

In other words, you chose to be weak. You didn't want to support Ian Smith because his regime was undemocratic. China on the other hand was perfectly willing to support ZANU (Chinese-inspired) from in the country-side, and was perfectly willing to encourage them to purge ZAPU (Soviet-inspired) and purge white people in a massive wave of violence.

Therefore, China and ZANU won in Rhodesia, and all the rest became losers.

Robert Mugabe is now welcome pretty much only in Beijing, and this is a case of what I mentioned earlier: 'The strong shall live and the weak shall die'. White people need to stop complaining about 'Zimbabwe', because there is no one to complain to other than their own democracy-loving selves.

[pugsville]

"weak hearts" how is it "weak"? The British people choosing not to put up with the costs of an empire when the benefits only flowed to a few, how is that "weak"? The Nature of the regime isnt the point just the British people were not going to fight and die and out up with increased taxation for an empire that didnt give them anything.

[ThirdTerm]

Other Mugabe gems include:
On Hitler: “I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for.”

Adolf Hitler belonged to Haplogroup E1b1b1 (E-M35), a haplogroup which originated in East Africa about 22,400 years BP, and Mugabe and Hitler share common ancestry, which may explain why the two dictators have so much in common. African tribal leaders may be genetically predisposed to resort to genocidal measures when tribal conflicts arise as we saw in the 1990s and the Rwandan Genocide decimated up to 20% of Rwanda's population and more than 90% of white farmers lost their land under Mugabe's land reform. Napoleon Bonaparte also belonged to Haplogroup E1b1b1c1* (E-M34*), which is highly concentrated in Ethiopia, and Napoleon seemed to be aware of his remote Berber ancestry. Hitler repeated Napoleon's mistake to invade Russia in winter and the Russians managed to repel the French and German invaders as both groups started retreating after reaching Moscow. Major wars became a permanent fixture in Europe while Hitler and Napoleon were in power, who tried to curve out their own empires in the most brutal manner imaginable as African tribal leaders would do in East Africa. Moreover, it was the Nixon administration that played the key role in the removal of the white minority government and Ian Smith and Henry Kissinger held a number of face-to-face meetings, by which Smith agreed to make way for a black majority government. Britain was diplomatically too weak to control the Rhodesian situation after it gained independence from Britain unilaterally in 1964 and Rhodesia got around tough economic sanctions by trading with South Africa and Portugal. But South African Prime Minister John Vorster threatened that if Smith did not accept majority rule he would end fuel and water supplies to Rhodesia, hoping to consolidate apartheid at home at the expense of Rhodesia, and Kissinger sacrificed the marginal Rhodesia for the sake of South Africa which was the all-important Cold War ally in Africa.

Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith and United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met in Pretoria to discuss majority rule for Rhodesia. South African Prime Minister B.J. Vorster joined the final stages of the talks. Towards the end of 1974, Vorster, backed by President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, had started to campaign actively for peace in Rhodesia, but to no avail. This was the third in a series of three talks, initiated by Kissinger, in an attempt to create a region of political and economic stability in Rhodesia that would be strong enough to withstand communist inroads. At this conference, Smith accepted the principle of majority rule in his country. Despite this major breakthrough there were no positive results, except an announcement by Smith on 24 September that his government had accepted Kissinger's proposal of a Black majority government within two years. This, however, did not end the war in Rhodesia. The Black movements in Rhodesia and the leaders of the front line states (Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana) would only consider a settlement on their terms and Smith refused to make any more concessions. Terrorist activity in Rhodesia continued, as well as punitive raids by the Rhodesian forces against bases in Mozambique, Zambia and Angola. The warring forces finally reached an agreement, confirmed in March, 1978, which produced a transitional government. Vorster immediately expressed his willingness to co-operate with the new government on a good-neighbourly basis.
http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/ian-smith-rhodesia-and-henry-kissinger-meet-pretoria

[Heisenberg]

Wow - complete agreement with Rei here. It's absurd listening to people complaining about Mugabe when the British government actively put him in power, knowing full well what sort of person he was, and what sort of government he'd lead. To wash our hands now and say how horrified we are is the purest hypocrisy. History has absolutely proved Ian Smith correct.

[Quantum]

Mugabe is not even a nationalist. He just blames the white man to deflect his secret dealings with white bankers in London via Barclays. The only reason he evicted the white farmers was to save his political skin and not in the interests of his countrymen.

What real African nationalist is a Catholic, a religion introduced to Africa by European missionaries? That alone should score high on my BS meter.

[JRS1]

If he wants to expel them, UK can take them.

Id be more than happy to see them here.

[KlassWar]

If he wants to expel them, UK can take them.

Id be more than happy to see them here.

Fuck no. Colonial far-rightists shouldn't be welcome in the UK or anywhere else in Europe. Let the reactionary settlers wither and vanish away in refugee camps wherever, but don't bring them in.

[Rei Murasame]

The reason that leftists fear former colonialists is because they usually have really down-to-earth ideas about how reality works, and aren't prone to holding self-destroying policy preferences. The best elements of the UK are the descendants of colonialists, in my view.

[fuser]

The reason that leftist fear former colonialists is because they usually have really down-to-earth ideas about how reality works

Right, that's exactly why these colonialists are still in power in Zimbabwe.

[Rei Murasame]

Read the thread and you'll see who stabbed them in the back. The colonialists took the correct path, and were vetoed by the British mainlanders.

This is something that you all don't seem to be able to understand. There is a difference between Britons in the UK, and Britons from elsewhere. It's also partly why my understanding of 'Britishness' is different from what the UK's present understanding of it is, because I was exposed to Britishness outside the UK more than inside it, which is a factor in why my assessment of the history of the UK is so often different.

Part of my adversarial stance toward the British mentality at the moment (calling them 'weak' and ect), is because they don't act like their ex-colonialist counterparts at all.

[Heisenberg]

The reason that leftists fear former colonialists is because they usually have really down-to-earth ideas about how reality works

Well, you would say that, being a descendant of Carribean colonialists.

Besides, this idea that the Rhodesians were "far-right" is a bit silly. Was Ian Smith a racist? Of course. But his party was ultimately of the liberal tradition, and he fought in the RAF during the Second World War. The Rhodesian government was hardly "extreme" - they just had very different circumstances to deal with than the British government did. Blocking majority rule, when "majority rule" meant giving the country to Maoist lunatics (who were responsible for far more misery, squalor and death than any Rhodesian government) was a perfectly rational position to take.

Right, that's exactly why these colonialists are still in power in Zimbabwe.

It's quite hard for any minority government to stay in power when it is literally betrayed by its mother country. Rhodesia performed very creditably in the aftermath of UDI, despite relentless pressure from a hypocritical American government and a downright servile (and frankly insane) British government.

[JRS1]

Right, that's exactly why these colonialists are still in power in Zimbabwe.

Who cares, bring 'em back. Much love. xxx

BTW when they were in power where they right? Bit confusing.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, you would say that, being a descendant of Carribean colonialists.

I'll acknowledge that there is a slight bit of bias involved.

But basically yes, the English side of my family holds 'bad people' views like "Mugabe is a mass killer", and "Mandela was a terrorist". These things are of course just true facts, but no one likes to hear it.

I remember once I got into an argument with some left-liberal, and he claimed that because I'm Anglo-Japanese and have that family history, it makes me "distilled evil from both sides of the family". I was just like 'what that hell'.

Besides, this idea that the Rhodesians were "far-right" is a bit silly. Was Ian Smith a racist? Of course. But his party was ultimately of the liberal tradition, and he fought in the RAF during the Second World War. The Rhodesian government was hardly "extreme" - they just had very different circumstances to deal with than the British government did. Blocking majority rule, when "majority rule" meant giving the country to Maoist lunatics (who went on to kill far more Africans than the "far-right" Rhodesian government ever did) was a perfectly rational position to take.

Pretty much, they weren't even that radical. They simply had no other options and realised that the success of their country depended on themselves remaining in power. However, they got stabbed in the back by the weak/crazy Harold Wilson government and its supporters. They can't really be blamed for not wanting to give up power, so Fuser's complaint makes no sense.

[fuser]

It's quite hard for any minority government to stay in power when it is literally betrayed by its mother country. Rhodesia performed very creditably in the aftermath of UDI, despite relentless pressure from a hypocritical American government and a downright servile (and frankly insane) British government.

Of course as reality dictated (being in minority) that they can't hope to hold on power, regardless of performance of Rhodesia it had to go because of the "reality" and hence my post mocking the notion that somehow colonialists have "better" perception of reality.