QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘They were going through yet another appeasement epidemic. It was based on the philosophy that you can have an easier and better life today if you side-step those issues requiring greater effort and maybe even sacrifice, in order to ensure a better future for your children. Let me say from my experience in politics that it is much easier to sell to voters a commodity which will make them comfortable as opposed to one which will require effort. There are two ingredients necessary to stimulate people to make a stand. First, a cause which motivates them: freedom to live according to their traditions, culture, religion, coupled with a determination to make a stand in order to protect these. Second, good leadership in order to mobilise and motivate. Many worthwhile and feasible causes have been lost through indifferent leadership. The gangsters, the extremists, never lack leadership or dedication. It is the decent, moderate person who, because of his reasonableness, is prepared to tolerate another point of view, who usually finds himself edged into the background in the rough and tumble and unscrupulousness of modern day politics. One of our most vital - indeed desperately urgent - tasks in life is to arouse moderate people when freedom and justice is under attack’.

Ian Smith (Prime Minister of Rhodesia)

Ian Smith was referring to the South Africans, who were the ones who forced the Rhodesians to capitulate to British demands. The South Africans believed that they could come to an understanding with the Black African nationalists and communists, by sacrificing Rhodesia in return for the neighbouring Black African states being prepared to tolerate the apartheid regime. Not surprisingly, the South Africans were wrong.

The Rhodesians did not operate an apartheid system and wanted a phased transition to Black majority rule (which was at the time, and still is, misrepresented). They declared UDI as Britain repeatedly reneged on a previous commitment to given them independence.

They had every reason to be cautious. The first British African colony to be granted independence was Ghana in 1957, and was heralded by the British as a great success. Within a couple of years, President Nkrumah had imposed a one-party dictatorship, half the members of parliament had been imprisoned, and the opposition leaders eliminated. The Ghanian economy was in ruins and the president had an external multi-million pound bank account. In 1966 he was ousted and was lucky to escape Ghana alive.

Nigeria was next to be granted independence in 1960. A bloody civil war between the Muslims and Christians soon broke out. Despite its oil, the economy descended into ruins and corruption was rife. Nigerian elections were marred by hundreds of murders in 1965. Despite all of this, at the Commonwealth conference in Lagos Harold Wilson spoke eloquently of the huge success of Nigeria’s independence, how well the other newly independent countries were proceeding, and how proud Britain was in the part it had played in bringing all this about. Within days of the conference ending, the Nigerian leader (and dictator), Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and many of his ministers were brutally murdered.

The Belgian Congo’s independence in 1960 immediately descended into civil war and tens of thousands were killed. The white settlers were often murdered, some were raped, and were forced to flee for their lives.

The independence of Tanzania, Zanzibar, Uganda and Kenya followed quickly and the experience was the same: the rapid establishment of one-party states, inter-tribal civil war, massacres, coups, and the exodus of the white settlers. On the independence of Zambia in 1964, President Kaunda soon made good his promise to turn the country into a one-party dictatorship - as most Marxists do.

Meanwhile Britain refused to give Rhodesia its independence, and allow the Rhodesians to solve their own problems themselves. Therefore the Rhodesians declared UDI.

The point Ian Smith makes in the quote is a good one. The UK is now faced with a Labour government, which is in the process of re-ordering society along the neo-communist politically correct lines, and which is coasting to victory in the general election - not least because they have rigged the vote.

There is no determined opposition to either Labour or political correctness. The case against mass immigration is not being properly put; likewise the case against membership of the EU, or the case against a nationalised NHS, or any sign of determination to reverse the tide of political correctness, or reverse the manner in which Labour has rigged the constitution in their own favour (ie by refusing to allow the English their own parliament, and the annual £10billion subsidy Scotland alone receives from the English).

All that the Tories are offering is their own version of socialism and the orderly management of decline.