Zimbabwe president's spokesman to West: 'Go hang'

[Marcus Marulus]

Zimbabwe president's spokesman to West: 'Go hang'

By ANNA JOHNSON and PAUL SCHEMM, Associated Press Writers Tue Jul 1, 2008

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt - Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe will not step down and Western critics who called the country's recent election a sham can "go hang," the longtime ruler's spokesman said Tuesday.

Mugabe was attending an African Union summit in this Red Sea resort after claiming victory Sunday in a runoff election that his opponent withdrew from, citing violence against supporters.

Leaders at the AU summit have been unwilling to publicly criticize Mugabe, and instead are gently pushing behind the scenes that he accept some sort of power-sharing agreement with Zimbabwe's opposition.

Presidential spokesman George Charamba sounded resistant to proposals about sharing power. Some African leaders have expressed frustration that more was not being done to pressure Mugabe.

Charamba told reporters that Mugabe would not step down.

"Isn't that an odd question. He's a few days into office and you expect him to retire, do you? ... Five days have expired, not even a week after. ... Why is the issue of the retirement of the president of Zimbabwe such an obsession for the West?" he said.

"He has come here as president of Zimbabwe and he will go home as president of Zimbabwe, and when you visit Zimbabwe he will be there as the president of all the people of Zimbabwe," Charamba told reporters.
The United States, Britain and other European countries have widely condemned the runoff. The U.S. is pushing for more financial and travel sanctions against Mugabe supporters and is urging the U.N. Security Council to impose an arms embargo.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has urged the African Union to reject the result of the runoff, and France says it considers Mugabe's government "illegitimate."

Charamba had harsh words for Western pressure: "They can go hang. They can go and hang a thousand times."

He also demanded that Zimbabwe be left to determine its own future.
"The way out is the way defined by the Zimbabwe people free from outside interference, and that is exactly what will resolve the matter," he said.

During public speeches at the summit's opening Monday, most AU leaders spoke of the "challenges" Zimbabwe is facing and none said anything harsh about Mugabe.

But Jendayi Frazer, the assistant U.S. secretary of state for African affairs, said she believed that in private, the leaders were going to "have very, very strong words for him."

Key African leaders have long had close ties to Mugabe, renowned as a campaigner against white rule and colonialism and Zimbabwe's ruler since its independence in 1980. They are also reluctant to be seen as backing the West — former colonial rulers — against a fellow African.

Meanwhile, Egyptian security ramped up restrictions Tuesday on journalists covering the summit after a British TV crew got into a verbal exchange with Mugabe the previous day. Many reporters were not allowed to leave the press area.

The confrontation began when British network ITN approached Mugabe outside the conference hall and asked how he could regard himself as president. The Zimbabwean leader responded that it was on the same basis as Brown's being the British prime minister.

Mugabe then said the reporter asked "stupid questions." TV footage showed Mugabe's guards pushing the reporter away.

[source]

[Menydh]

It appears that it is in Africa where anti-immigration sentiment and sovereignty determination is stronger. Just a few days ago a poll posted here showed Sub-Saharan Africans as having the largest percentages of opposers to immigrants. And some weeks ago Black South Africans attacked Black immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and other African countries, killing more than 60 and spreading terror among the rest many of which went back to their countries of origin, even evacuated by transports from their own governments.

Aside from the methods used by Zimbabwe's government against White farmers in the country, which have been savage on many occasions, one should admit that it is their land and that they have a right to it. And a right to evict White (or Yellow, or else) immigrants, colonists, settlers or whatever one wishes to call them.

Of course they can be cursed for their savagery in doing so but, who would have expected anything not in their nature?

I'd like to call the attention upon a thread started by a Canadian Germanicist (or British imperialist, it is not clear which or if both) on another forum, 3 months ago, whining about the seizure of 60 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe:

Originally Posted by OneTrueLoyalist

It seems evident that, on every occasion where whites, both in Zimbabwe and South Africa, are further marginalized, the only effect is a lessening of their disproportionate contributions to the nation. It is no coincidence that the two most prosperous nations in sub-Saharan Africa held that status while ethnic Europeans stood at the helm. Nor is it a coincidence that, after these regimes were toppled by negro terrorists and their international supporters (Zionists and the various garbage on the left-wing of international media and politics), stagnation, inflation, and a total collapse of living standards set in immediately. The sheer contrast of life in Rhodesia and Apartheid-era South Africa to the conditions in those nations today is a testament to the simple inability of the natives to effectively manage a nation. I also remain stunned and disgusted at the hypocrisy of so-called "human rights" activists now; any instance of perceived white oppression of blacks met with massive international outcry, condemnation, economic sanctions, and a host of other responses. Yet, when the rights of whites, such as the basic abilities to own land or obtain employment, are blatantly denied, there is no organized response from the world community, and the news reports, if any, are relegated to the back page of the media.

[source]

The first part in bold where he excuses the White presence on the grounds of the "contribution of whites" to those countries is of the same nature as the excuse offered by Liberals for the presence of foreign immigrants in European countries, on the grounds that they "contribute to the economy". Only the proportions being different.

The third part in bold assumes that he knows about the conditions of the millions of natives (Blacks) in those countries, during white-controlled Rhodesian British and South African Apartheid regimes. I pretty much doubt that he ever visited, for example, the townships of Crossroads or Soweto and what the conditions of life were there.

And I'm not even speaking of any right to freedom, self-rule and sovereignty here.

The second part in bold is probably the one that most amazes me. According to the thinking of this British imperialist, any Nationalist in Europe could be labeled as a terrorist only for any activity directed at the eviction, deportation or repatriation of the non European foreign immigrants in our nations. In fact any of us...

And the amazement doesn't stop there. The international supporters of these Blacks are no less than... the Zionists!!!!!

Well, it is no secret that the South African regime of the Apartheid was supported by Zionist Israel when no other country did, and that this was a mutual support. But if there are doubts about what the Jewry and Zionism were in Rhodesia, a little introduction could help dispel these doubts:

Prior to the 1970s, Rhodesia was formerly a British colony. Eastern Europeans, most from Russia and Lithuania, first settled in Rhodesia and became active in the trading industry. In 1894, the first synagogue was formed by 20 Jews in a tent in Bulawayo, Rhodesia. The second community arose in Salisbury (Harare) in 1895; a third congregation, which has remained small, was established in Gwelo in 1901. By 1900, 400 Jews lived in Rhodesia. The first Jews came by way of the southeast coast through Portuguese Beira.

Rhodesian Jewry was always very active in regional and international Zionist activities. In 1898, the Central African Zionist Organizations were established in Bulawayo as the Zionist supervising organization in the region.

In the 1920s and 1930s, several Sephardic Jews arrived from Rhodes. By 1921, census data reported 1,289 Jews living in Rhodesia. In the late 1930s, several German refugees, moved to the country fleeing Nazi persecution. Following World War II, Rhodesia witnessed a period of economic prosperity; consequently a number of Jews arrived from South Africa and England.

In 1943, both the Rhodesian Zionist Council and the Rhodesian Jewish Board of Deputies were established to organize national Jewish and Zionist activities in the country. Jews became largely responsible for the national pioneering endeavors in transportation systems, mining, hotel corporations, and cattle selling, among other industries. By 1961, the Jewish population peaked at 7,060.

The Virtual Jewish History Tour: Zimbabwe

After the end of the racist regime of British Rhodesia, Jewry and consequently Zionism decayed in both Zambia and Zimbabwe. So it looks as if it would the exact opposite, since Zionist support thrived during British colonial rule, business as usual.

The fourth part in bold is just a rant like any pro-multicuturalist would do here. As in fact they do on a daily basis.
It is a trade-off if you want your "Germanic" fellows have the right to own lands, live and work in those African countries, that the fellows of the Bantus have the right to own, live and work in the European... no, Germanic... not even... just in Britain?

Since this comes from an established member of a forum for "Germanic preservation", I wonder if to agree to the right of the peoples other than Germanics, to their sovereign rule and preservation is inherently "anti-Germanic". Or if this is just a British thing.

p.s. also worth to notice how he calls "nations" to countries which are in reality multi-tribal states... the Zulu in South Africa are a nation. And so are the Shona in Zimbabwe and Zambia. But it appears that Zimbabwe or South Africa are being called nations under the same rule of thumb as one would call Britain a nation.

[orieleye]

They speak English at the upper levels apparently. This '**** you' has an artificial ring to it, having a sense of immediacy they don't possess. For me, it's painful listening to Mugabe or Mandela speak, wondering will he remember what word to use. This phrase shows they haven't moved beyond their colonial inheritance.

[Marcus Marulus]

The racist-segregationist president Ian Smith's government was brought down through the action of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher first and foremost.

I do not question the principle according to which peoples of Zimbabwe, Shona and Ndebele, are entitled to take their land back, which was taken away from them forcefully, by the British colonizers.

Another question is the appreciation of the person of Robert Mugabe. Once I thought of him as of someone who stood bravely in the face of the blackmailing "West", as a champion of independence of his country, but not any more. His policies ruined the country completely, so it seems, particularly in the light of his recent political moves, that he is the typical African dictator, ruling by means of a combination of sheer force, violence, incompetence and stupidity.

[Marcus Marulus]

Zimbabwe\'s last white farmer forced to quit - Telegraph