Zimbabwe: Liberal Consequences

[David York]

A Pretty Good Video Package to Go along with this Great Dr. Pierce Broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBibWSh8L8Q

Zimbabwe: Liberal Consequences

Today let's talk about liberalism. Let's look at what this disease of the soul is doing to one group
of our people. Let's look at the consequences of liberalism in a country in the southeastern part of
the continent of Africa, a country that until 20 years ago was known as Rhodesia and today is
called Zimbabwe.

The reason Rhodesia is called Zimbabwe today is that in 1979 the Rhodesians, under intense
diplomatic and economic pressure brought to bear against them by liberals in America and
Europe — and to be completely honest about it, showing some symptoms of the disease
themselves — decided to let Blacks vote for the next government of Rhodesia. Since there were
at that time six million Blacks living in Rhodesia and only 275,000 White Rhodesians, this was
in effect a decision by the Rhodesians to commit collective suicide. Some of them realized that
fact at the time, but most didn't, because, as I just mentioned, they were showing some early
symptoms of liberalism. Today most of the few Rhodesians who are left realize that they made a
fatal mistake 21 years ago. But before we get to the Rhodesian situation today, let's just
remember a little history.

Early in the 19th century people from the British Isles first began farming and mining operations
in the part of Africa north of the Limpopo River and south of the Zambesi River: an area that
later became Rhodesia. Murderous forays by Blacks were a problem during the 19th century,
even though they more often were intent on murdering and eating each other than on killing the
White settlers, but eventually the Whites taught the Blacks to behave themselves. By the
beginning of the 20th century the Rhodesian highlands were being farmed on a significant scale
by White settlers.

The Rhodesian highlands, with their almost European climate and fertile soil, weren't of much
interest to the jungle-acclimated Blacks, but the Whites found the area ideal, and in the period
between the two World Wars they built a thriving country, not only with farming and mining, but
also with gleaming cities and a number of industries. After the Second World War, many
veterans from England migrated to Rhodesia. The Rhodesian population was certainly a cut
above that in Europe: taller, fairer, leaner, more enterprising and energetic on the average. Look
at photographs taken in Salisbury or on Rhodesian farms. The Rhodesian women especially were
tall and blond and beautiful. Rhodesia was a good place to live, a good place to raise White
children.

But of course, there was a worm in the apple. A wave of liberalism was sweeping over Europe
after the war. Liberalism had defeated fascism. The corpses of millions of liberalism's opponents
were rotting in mass graves all over Europe, after they had been machine-gunned, hanged,
starved to death at the end of the war. Other millions of the opponents of liberalism were being
worked to death in slave-labor camps behind the Iron Curtain. Liberalism was triumphant. And
even in happy, sunny Rhodesia the malignant influence of liberalism made itself felt. The liberals
in Europe were screaming about the evils of White colonialism and White imperialism. The
White man was oppressing and exploiting the Brown man in India and the Black man in Africa,
and it had to be stopped. After all, we were all equal. Race was an inconsequential detail, only a



matter of skin color and nothing else. To think otherwise was to be a "fascist," a "racist." A
horribly bloody war had just been fought in order to exterminate the "fascists" and the "racists."
It was intolerable that we should permit "racist" policies to govern our colonies in Africa. The
Blacks must be given the vote. We must step down and hand everything over to our Black
"equals."

This insanity even had its proponents in Rhodesia, especially in the Christian churches there.
Most Rhodesians at that time were in no mood for giving their country away, despite all of the
liberal propaganda. After all, it was their country. They and their ancestors had built it. Despite
the influx of immigrants still arriving from England, most Rhodesians had been born in Rhodesia
and had lived there all their lives. And they knew what the Blacks were like. They knew that the
differences between Whites and Blacks involved infinitely more than skin color. Furthermore,
they knew that they were not oppressing the Blacks, who actually were much better off since the
arrival of Whites. The Blacks greatly preferred an occasional lashing by a White farmer when
they didn't work hard enough to being eaten by their fellow Blacks when they lost a tribal war.

At least, that was the case with most of the Blacks in Rhodesia, where they worked primarily as
farm laborers. But there was some resentment, some envy of the White man. And there were
Whites, infected by the disease of liberalism, who were eager to fuel that resentment and turn
that envy into active hatred. Some of these infected Whites were in the media. Even more of
them were in the Christian churches. One of the principal activities of the Christian churches in
Rhodesia was educating Blacks. They set up mission schools throughout the country, where they
not only provided free medical care for the Blacks and taught them how to read and write, but
also pumped into them the propaganda of equality and of hatred of their White employers. They
preached a theology of revolution. Every single Black terrorist leader who later emerged when
warfare between Blacks and Whites broke out in Rhodesia — every one — was trained in a
Christian mission school. That includes the current Black dictator of Rhodesia — excuse me,
Zimbabwe — former terrorist leader, now president, Robert Gabriel Mugabe. It also includes the
Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, who in 1979 was the head of the Zimbabwe African National
Union (ZANU), one of the principal terrorist groups. And it includes Bishop Abel Muzorewa,
the first Black to be maximum leader of Rhodesia after the Whites abdicated.

When Black terrorists became active on a significant scale during the 1960s, the Rhodesians
fought back hard. While other European colonies in Africa were abandoned, the Rhodesians,
along with the South Africans, were determined to defend their land and their homes. And of
course, the liberals in Europe and in America were solidly on the side of the Black terrorists. The
liberals cheered whenever the Blacks murdered a White farm family or set off a terrorist bomb in
Salisbury. And when the terrorists murdered or mutilated the Black workers of a White farmer,
the liberals were silent. They hadn't really wanted that, but after all, you can't make an omelet
without breaking a few eggs.

An ironic point is that Rhodesia's Christian missions frequently also were targets. The White
farmers learned quickly how to deal with terrorists. Their farms were heavily armed, and they set
up a very effective mutual defense and alarm network. When they caught a live terrorist, they
hanged him. The Rhodesian Army had the best anti-terrorist fighters in the world. Tracking,
catching, and killing Black terrorists became a sport at which they excelled. In their frustration,



the Blacks turned on the Christian missions that had trained them. The missions were unarmed
and often were in remote areas and so were easy targets. The Blacks would gang-rape the White
nuns and nurses and then cut their throats. They would slit open the bellies of the White infants
and children and pull out their entrails. They would impale the priests on stakes and gouge out
their eyes. The liberals back in America would smirk. They would much rather it had been a
White farm family than the White staff of a Christian mission station — but at least the victims
were White.

The Rhodesians as a whole were coping pretty well with Black terrorism, so the liberals began
applying economic terrorism. Rhodesia was placed under embargo by the United Nations. The
intention was to starve the Rhodesian "racists" into submission, to cut off the supplies they
needed to defend themselves from the Black terrorists. Well, the embargo was ineffective,
because the Rhodesians got whatever they needed from the South Africans, just across the
Limpopo River to the south. This infuriated the liberals. Christian church groups in America
raised money for the Black terrorists in Rhodesia so that they could buy more effective weapons.
Whenever the Rhodesians hanged a group of terrorists, church groups and other liberal groups in
America would hold candlelight vigils, which seems to be one of the favorite things liberals do.

The Jewish media were the liberals' most effective weapon against Rhodesia, however. The
media in America whipped up a frenzy of bloodthirsty hatred against the Rhodesians. They had
students demonstrating on university campuses. They invited terrorist leaders to speak to student
groups, and they helped to raise funds for the terrorists. The destruction of White Rhodesia was
one of the top-priority projects of American liberals during the 1970s. But the White Rhodesians
weren't especially worried. They had declared their independence from Britain in 1965 when the
liberals in Britain tried to impose Black rule on them, and as long as they could trade their farm
products and their minerals to South Africa in return for military helicopters and petroleum
products, they knew they could fight Black terrorism indefinitely.

So the liberals stepped up the economic pressure against South Africa. And the South Africans, I
am embarrassed to say, eventually gave in. They cut off their trade with Rhodesia, leaving the
Rhodesians isolated. And I cannot blame this bit of treachery entirely on the liberals. In part it
was due to selfishness and stupid shortsightedness on the part of non-liberal South Africans.
South African businessmen and politicians thought that if they threw the Rhodesians to the
wolves they could relieve some of the economic pressure the liberals were putting on South
Africa.

Even without South Africa's help, the Rhodesians could deal with the terrorists. But liberalism
also had infected many Rhodesians and weakened both their self-confidence and their judgment.
They decided in 1979 that living under a Black government wouldn't be so bad after all. Blacks
were human beings too, they thought. Surely the Blacks would understand that their own welfare
depended on the Whites. The Whites made up only 4.5 per cent of the population, but they
produced 92 per cent of Rhodesia's agricultural output. Black farmers engaged only in
subsistence farming, and their own families consumed nearly everything they produced. Without
the White farmers and their large, efficient farms, everything would sink back into the jungle. So
with all sorts of agreements and safeguards and assurances from the British government and the
United Nations, the Rhodesians turned their government over to the Black majority, thinking that



then the world would love them, their standard of living would go up because the embargo
would be lifted, and everything would be peaceful and prosperous again.

Well, it didn't take long for cold, hard reality to assert itself. The first thing that happened was
the change in the name of their country from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Their capital city had its
name changed from Salisbury to Harare. And their democratic government, with all its checks
and balances to assure the safety of the White minority quickly reverted to the norm for Black
Africa: a one-party dictatorship, with an increasingly unstable and unpredictable Black dictator.
Robert Mugabe's party controls 147 of the 150 seats in Zimbabwe's parliament. There are Black
opposition groups in Zimbabwe, but when they try to have public meetings or election rallies,
they are set upon by armed thugs from Mugabe's party, and their leaders tend to disappear or
have fatal accidents.

During a peaceful march in Harare on the first of this month by 3,000 members of an opposition
group, including 200 Whites, Mugabe supporters armed with clubs and machetes attacked the
marchers while Black police watched without interfering. The attackers singled out the Whites in
the procession. I'll read you a few lines from an eyewitness report. I quote:

"As the police stepped hastily aside, they charged. Demonstrators fled in panic as stones were
hurled toward them. Crouching in a doorway, I saw an ordinary shopping street overrun by
anarchy. Thugs raced along pavements beating bystanders to the ground and snatching handbags.
. . . Shops hastily barricaded entrances, leaving desperate people trapped in the street. A white
man in his fifties was hit by stones and fell to the ground. His companion, a white woman in her
forties, was toppled beside him. Seconds later three youths attacked them with clubs, and blood
spattered across the pavement where they lay."

In front of me I have dozens of other eyewitness reports of beatings, slashings, and stabbings of
Whites who participated in this peaceful protest against the Mugabe government two weeks ago.
I doubt that you read any of these reports in the New York Times or the Washington Post. They
really don't like to report such news.

Much of the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe is related to Mugabe's threats during the past year to
take the farms away from the White farmers and give them to his Black followers. Last week, on
April 6, he finally announced that he will confiscate White farms without compensation. Even
before the announcement, Black gangs already had invaded more than 800 White farms and had
become illegal squatters, and Mugabe had refused to intervene.

There are only 75,000 Whites left in Zimbabwe today. Of the 275,000 Rhodesians in the country
in 1979 at the advent of Black rule, 200,000 already have left. The ones who remain own some
4,500 farms, which still produce more than 90 per cent of Zimbabwe's agricultural output.
Mugabe is basing his popularity with Blacks on a promise to take the farms away from Whites
and redistribute the land to Blacks.

Referring to his refusal to remove the illegal squatters from the White farms, Mugabe announced
last week, and I quote: "We will not remove the people from the farms. We are going to share the
farms. We are all equal. We all have to share equally."



The remaining Whites in Zimbabwe are desperate. Their farms are all they have. When those are
taken most of them will have nothing left and nowhere to go. A minority of them with British
passports can go to Britain, but everything they own, everything they spent their lives building,
will remain behind.

Now, here's the punch line to this story: it isn't a story in America. The Jewish mass media over
here have been far too busy giving us the latest updates on Elian Gonzales to tell us about what's
happening in Zimbabwe. Four days ago, on Tuesday night of this week, I saw a one-minute
snippet about the dispossession of the White farmers of Zimbabwe on CNN Headline News. I
don't expect to see much more. So far as the Jewish media bosses are concerned it's not
important news. The victims are our people, not Jews or Blacks or other non- Whites, and so
there's no need to make a fuss about it. And the liberals, of course, aren't interested.

They were very interested back in the 1970s, when they were busy destroying Rhodesia. But
now that the work of destruction is done they have completely lost interest. They don't care.
Their latest project is to persuade the International Monetary Fund that it must not be so stingy in
giving our money to African countries that need it. They're demonstrating in the streets of
Washington right now in a campaign to get more money for supporting bankrupt countries —
countries like Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Since the Whites, who were the principal employers
of Black workers in Zimbabwe, began leaving a few years ago, the unemployment rate in
Zimbabwe has reached 50 per cent. Now the annual inflation rate also has reached 50 per cent.
When Mugabe begins grabbing more White farms, as he announced last week that he would,
there will be a total collapse of the economy. On top of that, one in every five Blacks in
Zimbabwe is infected with HIV.

Yes, indeed, a new generation of very earnest college girls and long-haired freaks and hymn-
singing Christians soon will have a wonderful, new cause to devote themselves to: providing
money and food and medical aid to the starving, AIDS-wasted Blacks of Zimbabwe. They will
be demonstrating just as self-righteously for this cause as the previous generation demonstrated
for Black rule in Rhodesia.

You know, I started out today to talk about the disease of liberalism. What I've talked about so
far is just one of the consequences of liberalism, one of the effects of this disease of the soul. The
very earnest college girls and the long-haired freaks and the hymn-singing Christians who were
so proud of themselves when they succeeded in destroying Rhodesia are just an effect of
liberalism also. They aren't liberals. They don't have an ideology. They just want to be
fashionable. They will take up any cause, with the utmost earnestness, so long as it is
fashionable. They don't have the wits to understand the disastrous consequences of their
misdirected earnestness. And they really don't care.

I used to want to kill all of these people. I wanted to round up every earnest college girl and
long-haired freak and every hand-clapping hymn- singer who had demonstrated for Black rule in
Rhodesia, or for a boycott of South Africa, or for Black voting rights in the South, or what have
you, make them dig an enormous burial pit, and then machine-gun all of them. I wanted to obtain
all of the old membership lists of the organizations to which these people had belonged, so that
they could all be rounded up and done away with. They have done so much damage in this



world, and then walked away from it without the least regret for what they've done, without the
least understanding of the harm they've caused, that it seemed to me that the proper thing to do
was just kill them all.

Well, I understand now that that's not really necessary. There are just too many trendy idiots in
the world. They are not even inherently evil. They lack the ability to distinguish good from evil.
They have no more inherent morality than animals do. They have no souls. They have only the
ability to recognize what is trendy at the moment. The people who need to be killed are the ones
who set the destructive trends for the idiots. They are the real liberals, the ones who are really
sick and need to be put down.

I'll talk more about them later. But for now I must tell you, I am really heartbroken when I
contemplate what the destructive idiots they manipulate have done to the White people of
Rhodesia, who were among the finest of our people and who at this moment are facing a very
grim future indeed.

[Cosmotheist]

From the above, Dr. Pierce said:

"You know, I started out today to talk about the disease of liberalism. What I've talked about so
far is just one of the consequences of liberalism, one of the effects of this disease of the soul. The
very earnest college girls and the long-haired freaks and the hymn-singing Christians who were
so proud of themselves when they succeeded in destroying Rhodesia are just an effect of
liberalism also. They aren't liberals. They don't have an ideology. They just want to be
fashionable. They will take up any cause, with the utmost earnestness, so long as it is
fashionable. They don't have the wits to understand the disastrous consequences of their
misdirected earnestness. And they really don't care.

I used to want to kill all of these people. I wanted to round up every earnest college girl and
long-haired freak and every hand-clapping hymn- singer who had demonstrated for Black rule in
Rhodesia, or for a boycott of South Africa, or for Black voting rights in the South, or what have
you, make them dig an enormous burial pit, and then machine-gun all of them. I wanted to obtain
all of the old membership lists of the organizations to which these people had belonged, so that
they could all be rounded up and done away with. They have done so much damage in this



world, and then walked away from it without the least regret for what they've done, without the
least understanding of the harm they've caused, that it seemed to me that the proper thing to do
was just kill them all.

Well, I understand now that that's not really necessary. There are just too many trendy idiots in
the world. They are not even inherently evil. They lack the ability to distinguish good from evil.
They have no more inherent morality than animals do. They have no souls. They have only the
ability to recognize what is trendy at the moment. The people who need to be killed are the ones
who set the destructive trends for the idiots. They are the real liberals, the ones who are really
sick and need to be put down."

The real takeaway here is that our people are being manipulated by the "usual suspects" and
their "crypto-Jewish" helpers, and the leaders of these are the ones that are "consciously evil"
and most deserving of the ultimate punishment. The others are just "useful idiots" that "just"
go along to get along with what their kosher media masters and "false leaders" tell them to do.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[David York]

I especially like that quotation that you re-posted, where Pierce said He used to want to kill all of those people. I can imagine Pierce's frustration with the world as he personally witnessed this liberal destruction of a White country during the 1970's. I myself was born in the late 70's and growing up I personally have never even heard about Zimbabwe let alone Rhodesia through any history or social studies class from grade school through graduate school. I feel like the American educational system has cheated me and countless others out of basic knowledge of the world's history. They did a pretty damn good job teaching about the Holocaust and Slavery, I have to give it to them there. Reading the Diary of Anne Frank in the 4th grade was crucial in retrospect . Where would we be if we weren't a nation of guilt ridden white folks?

[Cosmotheist]

Guilt society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In cultural anthropology, a guilt culture, or guilt society, is the concept that the primary method of social control in a given society is the inculcation of feelings of guilt for behaviors that the individual believes to be undesirable. It is possible to classify societies, specifically apollonian ones, according to the emotions they use to control individuals, swaying them into norm obedience and conformity. According to this classification, a guilt culture is an alternative to a shame culture.[1] Shame cultures are typically based on the concepts of pride and honour,[2] and appearances are what counts, as opposed to individual conscience in guilt cultures.[3] The distinction was first coined by E. R. Dodds in The Greeks and the Irrational (1951).[4]

Anglo-Saxon England is particularly notable as a shame culture, and this trait survived even after its conversion to Christianity, which is typically a guilt culture.[5] Other example of shame culture under Christianity are the cultures of Mexico,[3] Andalusia[2] and generally Christian Mediterranean societies.[6][7]

Features
A prominent feature of guilt societies is the provision of sanctioned releases from guilt for certain behaviors either before the fact, as when one condemns sexuality but permits it conditionally in the context of marriage, or after the fact. There is a clear opportunity in such cases for authority figures to derive power, monetary and/or other advantages, etc. by manipulating the conditions of guilt and the forgiveness of guilt.

Paul Hiebert characterizes the guilt society as follows:

Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of morality within us, when we violate our conscience. A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions. Guilt cultures emphasize punishment and forgiveness as ways of restoring the moral order; shame cultures stress self-denial and humility as ways of restoring the social order. (Hiebert 1985, 213)

The introduction of a new state-sanctioned (or ruler-sanctioned) religion does not necessarily effect radical changes in a culture's basic structure of values. Not only Beowulf but the Maxims of the Exeter Book — "Dom bib selast" (Fame is best, 80) — and The Battle of Maldon attest to the vitality of the shame culture and its values in Anglo-Saxon England long after the Conversion. The theme of "worship" (i.e., Anglo-Saxon weordscipe [honor]) running through Malory's stories suggests that the ethos of the shame culture survived both the Conversion and the Conquest.

This page was last modified on 2 November 2013 at 19:52.
======================================================================================================

Shame society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In cultural anthropology, a shame culture, also called honour-shame culture or shame society, is the concept that, in a given society, the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining social order is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. A shame society is contrasted with a guilt society in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the afterlife) for certain condemned behaviors, and with a fear society, in which control is kept by the fear of retribution.

The concept of shame is widely accepted due to Confucian teachings. A quote from Confucius in the book The Analects:

"Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously".[1]

Japan
The society of traditional Japan was long held to be a good example of one in which shame is the primary agent of social control.[citation needed] The first book to cogently explain the workings of the Japanese society for the Western reader was The Chrysanthemum and the Sword by Ruth Benedict. This book was produced under less than ideal circumstances since it was written during the early years of World War II in an attempt to understand the people who had become such a powerful enemy of the West. Under the conditions of war it was impossible to do field research in Japan.

Without being able to study in Japan, Benedict relied on newspaper clippings, histories, literature, films, and interviews of Japanese-Americans. Her studies came to conclusions about Japanese culture and society that are still widely criticized today, both in America and Japan.[2]

Western society
Contemporary western culture uses shame as one modality of control, but its primary dependence rests on guilt, and, when that does not work, the criminal justice system.

Paul G. Hiebert characterizes the shame society as follows:

"Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one."
(Hiebert 1985, 212)

Romani (Gypsies)
To the Roma (Gypsies), though living as local minorities in mostly Christian or Islamic societies, the concept of lajav ("shame") is important, while the concept of bezax ("sin") does not have such significance.[3]

This page was last modified on 29 January 2014 at 23:55.

======================================================================================================

What Cosmotheists want to build is neither a "guilt" nor a "shame" society,
but, a "sane society" based upon arete' or excellence of Aryan Human Being:

======================================================================================================

αρετη

Transliteration: arete or areté
Definition: Virtue, excellence, moral excellence
Pronunciation: ah-reh-'tay (hear)
Explanation:

No English word or phrase captures the exact meaning of arete. The nearest equivalents are 'excellence' and 'virtue'. But there is something more to arete which cannot be expressed in words. There is something of the Divine in it. Perhaps the only true way to understand arete is to consider two or more examples of excellence and to contemplate what it is they share.
What does it mean when we say of an action, an artistic work, or some flawless athletic maneuver, that it is excellent? To behold what is excellent, in whatever form, brings us the same joy. We perform an action with excellence and say, "perfect!". In the moment of excellence, something transcends the mundane and touches the Ideal.

For Plato, arete is mainly associated with moral excellence. It is superordinate to specific moral virtues of Courage, Temperance, Justice, etc.; something they all share, a special, unnamed quality, their essence. It is clearly related to Goodness, but not the same thing.

For Aristotle, something is excellent when it manifests its unique purpose or telos. The unique, defining quality of human beings, for Aristotle, what makes them distinct from other creatures, is the capacity for rational thought. Human excellence, then, involves the correct use of reason, principally in connection with moral choice.

Additional Readings
:
See Aristotle, "What is the Life of Excellence?"

======================================================================================================

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[David York]

So by what you posted it sounds like the educational system is trying to make us a shame society(and the Zio-media) while the Christian religion is making us a guilt society? It sounds like we are suffering from both if I'm not mistaken, but I could be wrong about the order.

[Cosmotheist]

So by what you posted it sounds like the educational system is trying to make us a shame society(and the Zio-media) while the Christian religion is making us a guilt society? It sounds like we are suffering from both if I'm not mistaken, but I could be wrong about the order.

Not exactly, but, we have and are suffering from "both types" even today, but, we "now need" to
transcend them both with and by embracing a true Cosmotheism and arete' and/or an excellence
of Aryan being ever upwards towards a Godhood. Christianity is guilt-based and shame-based in
its psychological control over our people, and as such, is an opposed ideology to both the NA and
Cosmotheism and thus is antithetical to our White survival and advancement towards a Godhood.
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=695

Best regards,
Cosmotheist