Dear Friends:
At last! Is Spring maybe, possibly, finally beginning to take hold across the nation? It’s hard to know for sure. I’m reserving judgment.
With world events moving so quickly, we thought it might be a good idea to review events in another part of the world, and consider their importance and significance in the overall scheme of things.
In recent weeks events in Zimbabwe have grabbed headlines around the world. This landlocked nation in south-central Africa has — in the last 28 years, under the “leadership” of communist dictator Robert Mugabe — descended into a nightmarish catastrophe in which 70-80 percent of its 12 million plus population are unemployed. Wracked with terror, famine and disease, its wretched inhabitants have the world’s lowest life expectancy. How could a human catastrophe of such magnitude have occurred in just a few decades in a naturally rich nation once hailed as the “breadbasket of Africa.” What turned it into what it has now become — the “basket case” of the black continent?
Although a detailed analysis of the causes for the effects now so evident in Zimbabwe would take several books, we can learn valuable lessons from a brief review of historical facts. Apart from a few outposts scattered along the west coast of Africa during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dark Continent had been basically left on its own from almost the beginning of time. What visitors found was truly depressing. In 1797 the Encyclopedia Britannica stated of the native Africans: “Vices the most notorious seem to be the portion of this unhappy race. Idleness, treachery, vengeance, cruelty, impudence, stealing, lying, debauchery and incompetence, are said to have extinguished the principles of natural law and to have silenced the reproofs of conscience. They are strangers to every sentiment of compassion and are an awful example of the corruption of man when left to himself.”
In the 1850s, when British and other explorers, colonists and missionaries arrived on the scene, they didn’t “steal” the wealth of the African continent. None existed. Through individual initiative, hard work, creativity, and long-term planning — and frequently at great cost, hardship, and loss of life — the Europeans tamed and developed the continent that had, for thousands of years under its native inhabitants, remained an untamed and undeveloped jungle. Ruled in a demonic and tyrannical fashion by witch doctors, practicing cannibalism, and living among innumerable warring tribes which practiced witchcraft and ancestor worship, there was no indication of the natives having made any kind of progress.
They had no substantive buildings, no written language, no history, no education system, had made no discoveries, had no road or transportation system, and no sanitation. In other words, for millennia Dark Africa had survived at a bare subsistence level, awaiting the arrival of the Europeans. It was the much maligned and far from perfect Europeans who were responsible for developing Africa. They built dams that made unarable land productive. They built houses and roads and, above all, provided the security of persons and lands that was formerly unknown. It was Europeans who found and developed the tremendous natural resources that had lain buried from time immemorial and which provided the capital necessary for further development. It was the Christian missionaries who translated most of Africa’s 900 languages and thus paved the way for education and social development. As Winston Churchill said in another context, that “truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.”
Was there some “exploitation” by the newcomers? Absolutely! In fact, in Africa it occurred much more among the Europeans themselves than at the expense of the natives. The Cape of Good Hope (Capetown) was first established in 1652 as a colony by the Dutch East India Company. The newcomers later became known as Afrikaners or Boers. By the end of the 1700s there were only about 15,000 inhabitants in the Cape, besides a smattering of Bushmen. After an unsuccessful attempt to establishment an independent republic in 1795, the area was seized by the British. Twenty years later it became a permanent British possession, resulting in the immigration of 5,000 British settlers. Some years later gold, silver and diamonds were found in the area.
CECIL RHODES AND RHODESIA
Here, history becomes really interesting. In the late 1800s Cecil Rhodes, a British elitist and Oxford graduate, arrived on the scene. In Tragedy and Hope, Professor Carroll Quigley tells us that Rhodes “feverishly exploited the diamond and gold fields of South Africa ... with financial support from Lord Rothschild he was able to monopolize the gold fields of South Africa.” One of his purposes was “his desire to federate the English-speaking people and to bring all the habitable portions of the world under their control [the creation of a new world order]. For this purpose, Rhodes left part of his great fortune to found the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford in order to spread the English ruling-class traditions throughout the English-speaking world...” (pp.30-31).
Rhodes is famously quoted as having declared, “To think of these stars you see overhead at night, these vast worlds that we cannot reach. I would annex the planets if I could” (Rhodes, by S. Gertrude Millin, London, 1933, p.138). In his will, and through a resultant Trust, Rhodes channeled part of his vast fortune (built on “feverish exploitation” of African wealth) into the creation of Rhodes Scholarships. Through these, many Americans — including Bill Clinton — attended Oxford University to be further indoctrinated in the “one world” ideology promoted by the international elite.
Round Table groups established by Rhodes later resulted in the establishment of The Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Council On Foreign Relations (“The Invisible Government”) in the United States. Both are dedicated globalist organizations.
Following World War II, the internationalists began to promote the idea of African nationalism — the creation of independent African nations governed by the natives. The concept, which was alien to Africans who are by nature tribal in orientation, was heavily promoted under the banner of Uhuru (Freedom). Although on the surface this high-sounding slogan appeared to promote an admirable objective, its international promoters had a much more Machiavellian goal in mind. As subsequent years have demonstrated, most of the new “nations” were ill-prepared for self-rule.
In South Africa in 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who was later revealed to have close ties with the Kremlin, gave his famous “Wind of Change” speech. Early on in his address, he was extravagant in his praise of white ruled South Africa: “No one would fail to be impressed with the immense material progress which has been achieved. That all this has been achieved in such a short time is a striking testimony to the skill, energy and initiative of your people.” But things had to change.
Toward the end, Macmillan declared that “the wind of change is blowing across this continent. Whether we like it or not, the growth of national consciousness is a political fact.” Through the influence of the British, American and other governments, and in league with the United Nations, the whites were to be forced to surrender all they had developed and built — and hand their control over to the blacks. Though abundantly obvious and desperately needed, there was little talk about the necessity to adequately train and prepare the native blacks for the awesome responsibility of administering the affairs of the numerous new nations slated to emerge as self-governing states. The fact that most of Africa was in the slow process of emerging from a very primitive existence, and thus unprepared for “self-government,” was conveniently ignored. This sad lack of adequate preparation was soon to manifest itself in no uncertain terms. From the beginning, most of the new nations enjoying their new-found “freedom” began to falter. Without having received adequate training, and without having developed long-term managerial skills, most of the new governments steadily crumbled, and fell into the hands of ruthless dictators. At least one of these mass murderers, Idi Amin of Uganda, resorted to cannibalism. He was known to have eaten some of his enemies.
White-ruled Rhodesia, under Ian Smith, recognized the dangers of immediately going along with “the wind of change.” As the native blacks were unprepared to rule a modern nation, Smith issued a unilateral declaration of Independence in 1965. Realizing what would be needed for the future well-being of the nation, the Smith government decided to assist the local blacks in the development of their own farming skills. With the assistance of a British agricultural expert, a carefully-thought-out plan was devised. The authorities recognized its enormous potential for the future economic well-being of the new nation. With financial and technical support from the white government, the expert went to a mainly black region of the country and set to work with great enthusiasm. Assembling a large crew of natives, and with the help of a few white assistants, he planned to build a state-of-the-art agricultural complex that would serve three main purposes: (1) Provide both business and employment opportunities for many hundreds of blacks, (2) Train blacks for managerial positions, and (3) Produce an abundant supply of wholesome and nutritious vegetables and fruit for other regions of the country — not to mention exporting surplus production.
Selecting naturally fertile land, of which there was an abundance, he supervised the layout and construction of an ideal agricultural complex. He built modern living quarters, processing and storage facilities, and a modern road system. These were all instrumental in getting the project off to a great start. The enterprise prospered. Profits were poured back into further development and expansion. After a few years, with the complex thriving and its markets expanding, the expert and his friends decided to place the management of the business in black hands — and duplicate the program in another part of Rhodesia.
The second undertaking was equally successful. It prospered. Then, after about five years, he decided to return to the site of the first complex to check out its progress. He was devastated by what he found: the buildings were dilapidated, the machinery was broken down and rusting, much of the wonderfully fertile soil was overgrown with weeds — and the blacks who remained were living at a subsistence level off small plots of ground.
Why the staggering degeneration? Was it due to a lack of training? Or a lack of incentive? Neither! Traditionally, the blacks in Africa have had no concept of husbandry. Historically, they have always overworked the land on which they lived, and moved on when the ground no longer produced enough to sustain them. They live for today. Because of their traditional, multi-tribal way of doing things, most are incapable of thinking long-term and planning for tomorrow. Such concepts are totally foreign to the African mind.
Even with a hundred or more years of white “presence,” very few black Africans have developed any concept of self-government and personal responsibility, of private property, of organizing, saving, investing and planning for the future. Such activities are alien to their native cultures. With very few exceptions, their thinking is strictly short-term. When left to their own devices, they almost invariably revert to their old traditional ways of doing things — or, more correctly, not doing things! The result? Chaos, confusion, and a return to the law of the jungle.
A few years later, Smith’s worst fears were proven correct. Under heavy pressure from America (Henry Kissinger) and Britain (Lord Carrington), international sanctions, and communist-generated internal political strife, the Smith government was forced to capitulate. In “free elections,” Robert Mugabe, a communist thug, took control of what then became known as Zimbabwe. The “rest of the story” is history — and the subject of today’s international headlines.
“WIND OF CHANGE”
It would be naive to think that the international power elite made a “mistake” when they forced the colonists out of Africa. As FDR stated, “In politics, there are no accidents. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Hard evidence points toward the fact that the “wind of change” declaration was part of a Machiavellian machination to force independent, entrepreneurial whites out of Africa, and thus clear the way for a takeover by the internationalists and their multinational corporate friends. The plan was to eliminate competition, and exploit the Africans. Evidence shows that numerous multinational corporations, including the big oil companies, have from the beginning organized and financed various rebel groups in order to maintain their grip on the various nations. As explained by John Perkins in Economic Hit Men, after the various new nations gained their “independence” the internationalists sent in “economic hit men” to convince the new, politically naive “leaders”to accept huge “development” loans and thus incur enormous debts they had no hope of repaying. This made them virtual slaves to the lenders and made them acquiesce to the demands of the international bankers, and crippled their ability to develop in true independence. “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).
We need to recognize this as yet another international “urban renewal” program designed to take all the wealth of the world out of the hands of its rightful, God-given owners and place it exclusively in the hands of those who plan to enslave us in a Luciferian new world order. Those who have “eyes to see and ears of hear” must surely recognize that, with a few modifications, basically the same plot has been in operation in the United States, and most other areas of the world for years. Have you ever wondered why both individually and collectively, the people of the once fabled “land of the free and home of the brave,” are so deeply in debt? In the long-term, will we be in any better shape than the slaves in the “independent” nations of Africa?
As Churchill declared in another context, the “truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.”
Hopefully, this generally unrecognized perspective will help our readers to more clearly understand what is happening on the world stage — and why!
In a world overloaded with a never-ending array of “insoluble” problems, it is imperative that we focus on absolute and eternal truths — truths that have stood the test of time and been instrumental in producing “fruits” that have been a real blessing to all concerned. In recent decades, however, the people of America and elsewhere have rejected these proven facts and decided to follow the way of least resistance. As a result, our nation is plunging with increasing speed into a cesspool of moral and financial depravity. It would be all-too-easy to throw our hands up in despair and allow ourselves to be overwhelmed and overcome. We must resist such temptations. No one has to follow this path. We each need to make a much-needed choice — one to follow the truth regardless of what “people may think of us.”
Everywhere around us, we see people apparently dedicated to a way of existence this is both futile and destructive. As if in a trance, they stumble through life falling into one rut after another while seemingly unable to “get it all together” in their personal lives. Throughout society, we see absolute, eternal truths being mocked and ripped apart by those who most people look up to and highly respect — teachers, professors, scientists, politicians, and, most regrettable, pastors. It is as if truth is “on the scaffold,” ready to plunge to its death and burial under the feet of a screaming, howling mob. What is occurring is reminiscent of the scene leading up to the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. During his sham “trial, Pilate found “no fault” in Jesus, and wanted to release him (Luke 23:4; 23:16). Yet the crazed, unreasoning mob hated the one who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). At the instigation of their leaders, “they cried out all at once, Away with this man. Crucify him, crucify him.” Read the history of mankind. From the beginning of time, it has always been this way.
In the famous hymn, Once To Every Man and Nation (adapted from James Russell Lowell’s The Present Crisis) the truth is expressed in memorable terms:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side,
Some great cause, some great decision offering each the bloom or blight,
Part the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by for ever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with Truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet t’is the Truth alone is strong:
Though Truth’s forever on the scaffold, and Wrong upon the throne;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
Best Wishes
Des Griffin
