Tag Archive for zimbabwe

An Argument For Guns

Guns stop beheadings

Guns stop beheadings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week an Islamist terrorist beheaded a woman at a food products factory in Oklahoma. He attempted to behead a second woman but was stopped when he was shot by the owner of the factory.

The liberal media and authorities are falling over themselves to portray the incident as a case of “workplace violence”. Given that the murderer was a recent convert to Islam and chose the ISIS terrorist group’s method of choice for the execution, that is a hugely implausible attempt at political correctness. Absolute nonsense, but that is a separate debate.

It’s just one more example of how guns in the hands of good guys save lives.

On another continent, guns saved my parents’ lives in a terrorist ambush. The knowledge that I had guns and would use them prevented our farm-house being overrun and my wife and I being severely assaulted or murdered in the Zimbabwe farm invasions.

If that beheading incident had taken place in Canada, the second victim would have had no chance. Gun laws here would have prevented the owner carrying a weapon or having one close to hand in a workplace.

In the unlikely event that the owner did manage to get his gun out of a locked gun safe, remove the trigger lock, get ammunition from a separate secure place and load the magazine in time to shoot the murderer, he would almost certainly have been charged with a number of firearm offences.

The West’s tolerance of demands for special treatment by immigrant minorities and tolerance of their disregard for local customs and laws is going to have serious consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I fear more incidents like the Oklahoma beheading.

Canada’s gun laws have left law-abiding citizens emasculated, unable to defend themselves and exposed to persecution by big government should they attempt to exert the most basic human rights of all. The right to life and to protect one’s family.

 

peter-wright

Why # won’t free Nigerian schoolgirls

 hashtag

 

Creative Commons License Dan Moyle via Compfight

A month ago, 300 schoolgirls were abducted by Islamic terrorists in Northern Nigeria. Their school was destroyed

The Nigerian government made almost no effort to find and release them.

For three weeks there was little reaction from world leaders, few comments in traditional or social media. A deafening silence from feminist groups and all those crusaders for “equal rights” who attack opponents of politically correct causes – same-sex marriage, for example, with such fervour.

More girls were abducted, some escaped and returned home. More attacks from Bakar Haram.

Videos of the girls, now in Islamic dress, were recorded with demands for captured terrorists to be freed in exchange for the girls release.

Angry and frustrated at the lack of response by the Nigerian government, families of the captured girls start protesting and demanding action.

Information released by external organisations suggests that the Nigerian government had been warned of an imminent attack on the school.

It is alleged that the warning was taken so seriously by some teachers that their own children were removed from the school.

Almost a month after the abduction, the outside world woke up and took action.

What did it do? Several nations sent token forces of “advisors” to help the Nigerian forces. Surveillance planes have been offered.

A new secret weapon was announced by the First Lady of the USA.

The hashtag.

Now we see the leaders of the former super powers and other countries, agonising over the fate of the schoolgirls.

What a pathetic spectacle.

I have great sympathy for the abducted girls and their families, but hashtag bearing First Ladies, tweets, placards and pontificating presidents are not going to get the girls back.

Only resolute action can do that.

 

That means capable, determined men on the ground with the skill and will to hunt the terrorists down and shoot them.

But there is no one to do it.

The Nigerian government has proved itself incapable of stopping Bakar Haram.

Western governments have no stomach for armed conflict in Africa.

Neighbouring African states have neither the ability nor interest to take on Bakar Haram.

The seeds of this abduction and much of the misery affecting the ordinary people in Africa were sown many decades ago. Not when Africa was colonised as liberals are so ready to suggest.

Africa was a violent and brutal continent centuries before the first Europeans arrived.

The real problems started after a few decades of explosive population growth thanks to the introduction of Western systems of hygiene, medical care, education and food production.

After introducing these systems, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, by the late 1950s and 1960s, the former colonial powers were abandoning their former colonies with indecent haste.

Leaving millions of people at the mercy of inept, corrupt and brutal dictators like Mobutu in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and a succession of military officers installed in armed coups in Nigeria. Similar examples, ranging from madmen like Idi Amin of Uganda to inept social meddlers like Nyerere of Tanzania had equally devastating effects on most of the continent.

The only two countries to buck the trend, maintain law and order, grow their economies and increase living standards substantially, were South Africa and Rhodesia.

Why the difference? Because these were the only two countries on the continent to resist one-man-one-vote, retain efficient, relatively incorruptible governments. Effective administrative systems kept the economy expanding despite, sanctions, terrorist wars and for South Africa, floods of illegal immigrants escaping the harsh reality of life in independent Africa.

There was however a huge problem.

The government of the only two successful countries on the continent were exclusively white.

That was unacceptable to those  who had already ruined their own countries and to weak Western leaders more interested in appeasing murderous dictators than the well-being of millions of people of all races on the southern tip of the continent.

Rhodesia and the old efficient, viable, South Africa are gone, sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Replaced by the corrupt and economic basket case of Zimbabwe and an ANC controlled South Africa heading down the same slope.

In the most recent version of violent transfer of power on the continent, it is Bakar Haram, and other terrorist groups, Islamic or not, taking advantage of ineffective governments to seize control of vast areas of Africa with their campaigns of terror.

Until the unfortunate residents of countries like Nigeria have governments that can govern effectively, the problem is not going away.

Now is the time for the West to get tough with those governments, cut off all aid, funding, assistance until the governments show some responsibility. Exercise the same rabid tenacity to stop African rulers squandering revenues or stashing funds in tax havens as the authorities do to law-abiding Western citizens taking advantage of legal loopholes.

Only then should material assistance to fight terrorism be given. Weapons and equipment sent now will almost certainly find their way into Bakar Haram’s arsenals to be used to capture more schoolgirls and kill thousands more innocent people.

That will be infinitely more effective than hashtags.

peter-wright

 

 

 

 

Aggravating racism by poking a stick in a festering sore.

Bandage it, don't  poke it with a stick

Bandage it, don’t poke it with a stick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does North America have such an unhelpful and unhealthy attitude to racism?

The reaction to the comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Stirling’s comments goes beyond ludicrous.

His comments, if they were correctly quoted, were not the most sensible considering many of his team and fans are black. They may have upset many people, but on the long list of serious problems in the world today, no reasonable person can rate them near the top.

However, they were made in a private conversation. One that was not intended to be made public.

For a country that claims to be against racism and for freedom of speech, the escalation of this incident and the resulting punishment of Mr. Stirling borders on the insane.

As a victim of far more serious racism than a derogatory comment in a private conversation, I am appalled at both the hysteria that this incident has generated and the reverse discrimination visited on Mr. Stirling.

For the record, my father was murdered, my mother crippled for life.  Later, I was thrown in a police cell while my farm and all my assets were illegally taken from me by the Zimbabwe government. All because we were white. That is the sort of racism every one should be concerned about.

Do I blame all black people for that? Of course not.

The most irresponsible and malicious actors in this sad saga are the person who “leaked” the conversation to the media, the media channel that publicised it and all those in both public and private office who have used it to make themselves look good.

Here’s why:

It was a private conversation.

Who among us can honestly say that they have never made a derogatory comment about a group of people in a private conversation. I cannot and I don’t think many others can.

How many times do we hear criticism of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Bankers, Oil executives, the Rich, the poor, the homeless, Southerners, Newfies, Italians, Germans, Russians or any other nationality?

What about criticism of religions, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists? Or sports teams, the police, the military?

As a former white resident of Southern Africa, now living in North America, I frequently have to ignore allegations of my obviously “terrible attitude to, and treatment of, black people”.

I know that these comments are made from ignorance by people who have no idea of the real situation in my former countries and who have been subjected to anti South African and anti Rhodesian propaganda for most of their lives.

While I may not like the comments, I understand that people are as free to make them as I am to publish my opinions and Donald Stirling is to express his in a private conversation.

The comments were not illegal

At the time of writing there has been no indication that the comments broke any laws.

Donald Stirling is a wealthy man who may be quite happy to sell his team for the $600 to $700 million it is reported to be worth. It’s poetic justice that he will realise a huge profit on his original $12 million investment if he does sell the team.

It would be supremely ironic if he chose to disband the team, but I doubt if anybody would walk away from that sort of money.

Will he go on the counter attack and sue who ever he can? Again much as I would like to see it, I think the deck is stacked against him.

Unethical manipulation of an owners association

If the man has not committed a crime, it is entirely unethical for the NBA to exert pressure on the owners association to expel him. It is also wrong for him to be expelled from the association and banned for life while he legally owns a team.

This treatment establishes a dangerous precedent akin to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930’s. Then it started with smashing shop windows. Now it’s by banning an owner from enjoying free use of his assets.

It establishes other dangerous precedents, underhand methods for sabotaging successful teams, alienating sponsors and supporters, crippling them financially.

It gives unsuccessful businesses the ability to raise charges of racism to unfairly eliminate competitors in the knowledge that even if the charges are completely unfounded, the media will ensure that damage is done.

Other than the reversed shirt incident, it does not appear that any team members have expressed their disapproval by walking away from the team. Their outrage is not sufficient to jeopardise lucrative contracts.

What would the NBA do if the team expressed solidarity with the owner and demanded that he continue as owner?

The USA trumpets the virtues of the free market system. The market should decide Donald Stirling’s fate, not the self-righteous advocates of totalitarianism that seek to control the thoughts and comments of a nation.

The end of free speech

It is an unacceptable use of thought and speech control, the same mob rule mentality that hounded Brendan Eich from his job a few weeks ago has struck another victim.

Who will be next, will it be you because you said something that a politician or someone in the media did not like?

Why this attitude is unhealthy

When a child comes to his or her mother with a minor scratch, she treats it with the appropriate amount of first aid and leaves it to nature and time to heal.

She does not poke it with a stick to make it much worse and then call the media to show the festering wound to the nation.

That’s what the over hyped reaction to incidents like this does, turn a minor scratch into a festering sore.

Like minor scratches, incidents like these should be left alone for time and nature to heal, not used to provoke racial tension and victimize people.

Why should incidents like this provoke such over-reaction? More hysteria than in some countries with histories of interracial conflict?

Is it lingering guilt over slavery? Or guilt over the almost total annihilation of the indigenous populations of North America and their reduction to powerless minorities? Or the success of the politically correct liberal left in dividing the moderate majority and stifling any opinion other than its own.

Be aware, you could be the next victim.

peter-wright

 

 

 

mage courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The great inequality propaganda machine.

Solidarity (2 of 25) Glenn Halog via Compfight

You cannot listen to a news broadcast or open a newspaper without hearing, watching or reading about that mortal sin “inequality” or it’s more sinister partner “income inequality”.

Politicians love using it, the media cannot resist hammering us with it.

It is designed to induce feelings of guilt amongst the successful and more so those who are both wealthy and successful.

It has been elevated to the heights of manipulation by a superbly orchestrated propaganda machine. Sponsored by liberal politicians, media and celebrities (many of whom are extremely wealthy). It is right up there with or beyond, “oil sands”, “Keystone Pipeline”, or “apartheid” in its capacity to stir the emotions.

There is one problem with it.

Income inequality (and many other inequalities) will always be with us.

They have to be, it is a fundamental rule of nature and life.

Our politicians, media and bleeding heart social commentators are using the wrong term.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “inequality” as

The quality of being unequal. Lack of equality. Difference or variation in size, amount, rank, quality, social position, etc.

It’s important to consider the same dictionary’s definition of “equality”:

State or instance of being equal.

Both terms are absolute, not relative. Two or more conditions, values, amounts, are either equal or they are not equal. Similar to the condition of pregnancy, a female is either pregnant or not.

Income equality could only exist under a perfect communist system where every person received an equal income regardless of contribution to the source of that income.

That did not happen in the former USSR, the communist states of Eastern Europe and is certainly not happening in North Korea, Cuba or China. In all those examples, the politically advantaged did and do receive far greater incomes (in different forms) than the masses.

The correct term is “Income Disparity”. A condition that has existed since the first evidence of life on the planet. A stronger, more active, more adaptable and more motivated member of any species will tend to be more successful, acquiring more and better resources. This allows it to attract and keep better mates and produce offspring with a better chance of survival and continuation of the species.

Although more accurate, the word disparity does not carry the same emotional, guilt inducing weight as does inequality, perhaps because of the intense emotion generated by reference in the past to racial and sexual inequality.

That is why the proponents of wealth distribution both in government and the media, continually portray income inequality as a mortal sin instead of a natural condition.

In modern society, only the most rabid communist would expect that a top-level executive responsible for creating and securing thousands of jobs, or the leader of a country, should receive the same income as someone who cannot or will not work at all.

Those comfortably off middle class who complain about the millions paid to CEOs and call for caps on bonuses should be careful what they wish for. Where salary caps and wage controls have been tried, they tended to suffer from “downward bracket creep”.

When those at the middle and lower-income levels, the very people who have been calling for controls, suddenly see their own incomes capped or reduced, they quickly lose their appetite for the policy.

It’s also worth remembering, that those at the lower end of the income scale in the first world are seen as fabulously rich by millions in the developing world.

An unemployed Zimbabwean with a life expectancy of 36 and no prospect of either employment or welfare thanks to disastrous government policies, is not going to have much sympathy for an American or European struggling to survive on $40 000 a year.

We should be concerned about income disparity. Real or perceived disparity in wealth, incomes, living conditions, access to resources are the sparks that ignite revolutions.

The way to address income disparity is to encourage, inspire and push those at the lower end of the scale to rise up it. Not drag those at the top down to their level through punitive taxation, legislation or politically expedient propaganda.

Let shareholders decide on executive and management income packages, not politicians, the media or celebrities.

 

peter-wright

 

The Mandela Myth

 

 

Richard Branson recently posted an article about Nelson Mandela’s book on Linked In.

I could not believe that someone as astute as Richard Branson would be taken in by the Mandela Myth, but perhaps he is looking to expand his business in South Africa. Political Correctness? Hypocrisy?

Mandela Myth

South African Protea -source Wikipedia Creative Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seemed that my comment might be of interest to readers.

Here is my comment (it exceeded the number of words for a comment, the last 3 paragraphs did not appear in the Linked In version)

As someone who saw the effects of terrorism in both Rhodesia and South Africa at first hand including losing a parent to terrorism in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and being a victim of Mugabe’s brutal farm invasions, I am surprised that a man of your vision and experience is promoting the Mandela myth.

It is a frequently and conveniently overlooked fact that Mandela was convicted and imprisoned for acts of terrorism, not for opposing the South African government. If he had been convicted of the same crimes in the USA or Europe, he would almost certainly have been executed, or still be serving a life sentence.

It is a further fact that approximately double the number of violent deaths have occurred South Africa since Mandela was released from prison in 1992 than in the 44 years from 1948 to that date under the “old” South Africa. Which government was more benign?

I am not sure that the families of those 5000 or so mainly Zulu opponents of Mandela’s ANC who were brutally murdered, many by the burning tyre “necklace” method would agree with your assessment of Mandela.

Before accusing me of being a racist, white supremacist or worse, yes there were aspects of the South African government policies that with hindsight, appear horrendous. Yes the native population could have been treated better in many ways. Yes some white South Africans did terrible things to black South Africans.

However white South Africans did not reduce the indigenous population to a powerless minority through massive European immigration, introduction of diseases, alcohol or casual murder as happened in North America and Australia. South Africa did not practice slavery as did the USA.

It’s very easy to point fingers from the safety of a country in Europe that has not had to deal with the same issues or from a “conquered” country that dealt with them much more harshly, two centuries ago. It’s time that the world starts recognising the contribution white (and other immigrant) South Africans did make to the country and all its people and time to recognise Mandela for what he was.

The world did a huge disservice to all South Africans by imposing sanctions and boycotts, pressuring the country to release Mandela and hand over to a former terrorist group that is proving incapable of managing a sophisticated economy.

By the early 1990’s demographics were changing South Africa and would have continued to do so, allowed to develop and change at its own pace the country would have evolved into a true “Rainbow Nation” and thousands of lives may have been saved.

peter-wright

Now if Zimbabwe had oil …….

Zimbabwean police beats fleeing protester

Zimbabwean police beat protesters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sokwanele – Zimbabwe via Compfight

One of the most evil mass murderers in the world, Robert Mugabe appears to have rigged yet another election and condemned the impoverished and brutalised people of Zimbabwe to a further 5 years of misery – if he lives that long.

There has been enough coverage of the election to establish for those that are interested that there was no chance of this election being “free and fair”. Despite the pontificating of a the leader of hand-picked observers, a former leader of another corrupt and wretched African country and an indecent rush to congratulate Mugabe by his southern neighbour.

Botswana, a recipient of a wave of illegal immigrants forced to flee Zimbabwe by Mugabe’s policies, to its credit, the only country in the region with the moral fibre to call for an independent audit of the election results.

The opposition MDC has challenged the result in court, but with most of the electoral court judges appointed by Mugabe, it’s doubtful that the evidence of voters prevented from voting on a massive scale, voters bussed in from tribal areas to vote in urban, MDC dominated, constituencies and long dead voters voting for Mugabe, will count for much.

The Zimbabwe stock exchange fell by 11% on the first trading day after the results were announced. Another candidate for an appearance at The Hague, Minister of Justice Chinimasa was on TV threatening expropriation of all non-black (and non-party faithful) owned businesses.

A major bank’s shares plunged, most banks announced a freeze on new business loans and the few remaining commercial farmers are again under threat.

What does the rest of the world do? Agonises over Syria, Egypt, Snowden, lack of gay rights in Russia. Passes some mild criticism of Mugabe and does nothing. Where is the outrage that the same countries, people and media expressed about South African Rugby tours for example, which hurt no one? Or about Rhodesia declaring Independence (just like the USA 270 years earlier) to prevent the disaster that has now unfolded?

The disaster in Zimbabwe – and with a ruined economy, 25% of its population fled, no currency of its own, and massive crimes against humanity, it is a disaster, gets almost no attention and less concern from the so-called defenders of democracy – the USA, UK and other Western nations.

Why? Because the West is too ashamed to admit that it sacrificed it’s only two important allies in sub-Saharan  Africa, Rhodesia and South Africa. With mining revenues declining, no oil in either country and the Cape sea route no longer of major strategic importance, the suffering of millions of people and massive human rights abuses can be quietly ignored.

Now if Zimbabwe had oil……….

The hypocrisy of the West and the liberal media is enough to make a saint despair.

 

peter-wright