Zimmerman Case – A Different Take on Liberal Hypocrisy.

Rhodesia

Rhodesian Landscape

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enough has been said, written, tweeted and updated about the trial by social media of George Zimmerman after the shooting of a young man who has been portrayed as an innocent teenager, trespasser, martyr, victim of racial profiling and more, depending on the agenda of the commentator. No need for me to add to the frenzy by commenting on the specifics of the case.

As a comparative newcomer to North America, it is sad to see the hysteria and manipulation that has been whipped up over this case by the liberal media and those with the intention of driving a bigger wedge into society.

As a member of the lost white tribe of Africa, I cannot help but see the hypocrisy in the coverage of this case. People of my European origin were cast as oppressors, racists, bigots and worse for elevating the indigenous people of Southern Africa from a subsistence level as hunter gatherers, frequently victims of tribal warfare. Perhaps today, their descendants (and their North American counterparts) would be happier (and far fewer) if they had been left untouched by progress, to continue their traditional way of life.

Although the benefits of colonisation were felt throughout the continent, only two countries (neither of which were true colonies) South Africa and Rhodesia, achieved a substantial European population.

Taxes generated by immigrant’s economic activity, financed schools, hospitals, stability, security, transport and access to more reliable food sources for the indigenous population.

After the early years of the 20th century, further European immigration was restricted, however as a result of massive black immigration from the less developed countries to the North and dramatically reduced infant mortality, the European immigrants remained a minority. That is why the vote was not extended to the indigenous population, as was observed in every country on the continent, a sudden dose of democracy for people who have no concept of it, proves disastrous and the system unsustainable. Truly a case of one man one vote, once.

It is no coincidence that these two countries, with the largest European populations and the longest period under stable, European controlled government, developed into the two most successful countries on the continent. Thriving economies despite a total absence of foreign aid, despite sanctions, embargoes and terrorist wars. South Africa became a world leader in deep level mining, oil from coal technology, it pioneered heart transplants. Rhodesia was a leader in agricultural innovation, wildlife protection and conservation, anti-insurgent warfare.

Yet both countries had to be sacrificed to appease third world dictators and weak-willed Western leaders who had been outmaneuvered at the UN and cowed by threats of oil shortages. Ironic that the USA is almost self-sufficient in oil once more!

The result, Zimbabwe as Rhodesia sadly became, reduced from a self-sufficient, food exporting country to a basket case, losing 90% of its White, economically active population, 25% of its total population, thousands murdered, record levels of inflation, its currency abandoned.

South Africa, on the same slippery slope, hundreds of thousands of skilled people have emigrated (Black as well as White). The violent crime and murder rate higher than under the “old” South Africa. Economy suffering, mines closing.

Were all Europeans in Southern Africa angels? No, there were abuses, unfairness, stupidity and many things that should not have been done, just as in North America. But if European rule was so bad, why did both countries suffer from huge waves of illegal immigrants departing their independent countries to the North?

Here is why I started with the reference to the media hysteria surrounding the Zimmerman case.

Black Americans are as much descended from immigrants as are White Americans. Fair enough, their ancestors may have been forced to leave Africa through slavery, but they are no more indigenous to this continent than I am. However, rarely, if ever, is there a public outcry against a real or perceived crime against a Native North American.

Where are those liberals and do-gooders that campaigned so virulently against South African and Rhodesia? By their standards, I would expect daily protests calling for indigenous governments to be installed in the USA, Canada and Australia. Why the disproportionate concern for Black feelings but not for those of the indigenous people?

I am not an apologist for Native North Americans, as conquered peoples, they have not done too badly. Certainly in Canada, they have perfected the art of extracting money from the various levels of government.

Two sets of rules, North American and Australian native people swamped by massive influxes of European immigrants and rendered powerless despite being able to vote. But restricted European immigration to Southern Africa and the uplifting of millions of native people punished because voting rights were with held in the knowledge that a universal franchise would spell disaster – exactly what happened in one case and is unfolding in the other.

On top of that, liberals in North America more concerned with the feelings and sensitivities of one, racially defined group of immigrant descendants than those of the bulk of the population whether of native or exotic origin.

The more the liberal fringe calls for “racial equality” the more they do to ensure it cannot happen.

Hypocrisy certainly knows no bounds.

peter-wright

Leave a Reply