Posts Tagged ‘jimmy carter’

Robert Mugabe, Leftist Success Story

Monday, December 4th, 2017

Former US President James Earl Carter had a reputation for being a bumbler. When he famously told Playboy Magazine about the lust in his heart, a significant plurality of the electorate probably questioned whether he had any in his pants.

The Iranian Revolutionaries under The Ayotollah Khommeni certainly experienced a sadistic joy in treating him as a eunuch. He barely beat the unelected place-holder who pardoned Richard M. Nixon in 1976 and was both subsequently and emphatically vanquished from making important decisions in the Election of 1980. He did, however, accomplish a thing or two before he went on to build houses and lecture people on Leftist Morality.

One rather regrettable accomplishment Carter and Andrew Young had an evil hand in was the rise of Zimbabwian Socialist Dictator and Scourge Robert Mugabe.

Messrs. Carter and Young would only countenance a settlement in which Mr. Mugabe, a Marxist who had repeatedly made clear his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state, played a leading role. Mr. Young, displaying the willful naiveté that came to characterize Mr. Carter’s mindset, told the London Times that Mr. Mugabe was a “very gentle man” whom he “can’t imagine … ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone.” Mr. Mugabe already had pulled the trigger on many innocent people, though. And not long after taking power in 1980, he killed about 25,000 people belonging to a minority tribe, the Ndebele. In spite of this, in 1989, Mr. Carter launched his “Project Africa” in Zimbabwe, a program aimed at helping African countries maintain food sustainability.

So how well did “Project Africa” do? After twenty years of gentle leadership, President For Life Mugabe resorted to white genocide when nobody in the Zimbabweian electorate with a brain would provide him with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

In 2000 Mugabe organized a referendum on a new Zimbabwean constitution that would expand the powers of the presidency and allow the government to seize white-owned land. Groups opposed to the constitution formed the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which successfully campaigned for a “no” vote in the referendum. That same year, groups of individuals calling themselves “war veterans”—though many were not old enough to have been part of Zimbabwe’s independence struggle—began invading white-owned farms. Violence caused many of Zimbabwe’s whites to flee the country. Zimbabwe’s commercial farming collapsed, triggering years of hyperinflation and food shortages that created a nation of impoverished billionaires.

And just how well did Mr. Mugabe support Mr. Carter’s dedication to world democracy? Mugabe reminds me of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Elections are sancrosanct until a leftist actually fails to win one.

Before the 2008 elections, he said: “If you lose an election and are rejected by the people, it is time to leave politics.” But after coming second to Morgan Tsvangirai, Mr Mugabe displayed more characteristic defiance, swearing that “only God” could remove him from office.

And what impact did that have on the lives of his people? About what you’d expect from a guy who hired the North Koreans to train an internal repression force.

Mr Mugabe once famously said that a country could never go bankrupt – with the world’s fastest-shrinking economy and annual inflation of 231 million per cent in July 2008, it seemed as though he was determined to test his theory to the limit. Professor Tony Hawkins of the University of Zimbabwe once observed that with Zimbabwe’s former leader: “Whenever economics gets in the way of politics, politics wins every time.”

Ultimately Robert Mugabe accomplished what every Leftist who seeks power dreams of. He achieved equality. He destroyed the economy, the currency, the food production system and the entire old White Aristocracy represented by Ian Smith. Robert Mugabe did all of this while living in a $7 Million palatial estate. As befits a poor and dying nation; it serves as a Poor Man’s Versailles.

He often said he would only step down when his “revolution” was complete. He was referring to the redistribution of white-owned land but he also wanted to hand-pick his successor, who would of course have had to come from the ranks of his Zanu-PF party. Didymus Mutasa, once one of Mr Mugabe’s closest associates but who has since fallen out with him, once told the BBC that in Zimbabwean culture, kings were only replaced when they die “and Mugabe is our king”.

And now Mugabe reaches his twilight. He is a nonagenarian dotard clinging to consciousness as he simultaneously loses his grip on power. His purported successor is a former crony dubbed not-so-affectionately “The Crocodile”. The Crocodile will only devour the bloated corpse of a forlorn Land of Mordor laid to waste by a Leftist unfettered.

Even The Atlantic is forced to acknowledge the awful truth of unrestrained Socialism. Here they list the ten ways Robert Mugabe murdered Rhodesia.

  1. Destroy the engine of productivity – His genocide against White Farmers.
  2. Bury the truth – His control over media that makes MSNBC green with envy.
  3. Crush dissent – His ability to kill critics that makes ANTIFA green with envy.
  4. Legislate the impossible – His bevy of stupid scoialistic legislation that makes Obamacare look workable.
  5. Teach hate – His training an entire generation to hate his political enemies.
  6. Scare off foreigners – See steps 1 – 5.
  7. Invade a neighbor – His attempt to placate his military Kakistocracy by seizing Congolese diamond mines.
  8. Ignore a deadly enemy – Socialized medicine has worked about as well as you would expect it to against the African AIDS epidemic.
  9. Commit genocide – Both against white farmers and against other native Zimbabwian tribes.
  10. Blame the imperialists – You know, like Great Britain and Amerika who intervened to make sure he got into power back in 1980.

Now the Leftists try to run from Mugabe they way they are running from the Leftist Legacy of Charles Manson here in Amerika.

In June 2007 Mugabe became the first international figure to be stripped of an honorary degree by a British university when Edinburgh withdrew one it had awarded to him in 1984. The following year the University of Massachusetts revoked a law degree it had awarded in 1986 and the year after that, in September 2008, Michigan State University cancelled a law degree it had granted to Mugabe in 1990.

It is too late. The Left made Mugabe. The Left empowered Mugabe. The Left forever owns Mugabe. Who better achieved the goals every Leftist worshiper of The Zero holds near and dear to the heart? Certainly not Jimmy Carter who labors endlessly to build a habitat for a humanity that his leftist protegees like Yassir Arafat and Robert Mugabe labor manfully to exterminate or render forever equal in utter and complete immiseration.

Multipolarity Has Caused Daily World Chaos

Saturday, August 20th, 2016


It seems like there is a new political crisis almost daily. Rampant crime, terrorism, political instability, refugee rapes, sluggish economies and political upheaval in Europe.

These are contrasted by other danger signs, including a sputtering, fraudulent economy in China complete with an imperialistic navy in the South China sea, and Middle East instability so profound it threatens a gateway to the apocalypse at any moment.

This leads to a vital question which our media has failed to ask: why does political catastrophe seem to be accelerating globally?

The simple answer (for some) is simply that Obama has done such a terrible job that the world is starting to fall apart. This explains only part of the collapse. Others might take a broader view that liberal rule has dominated more of the globe (EU and US especially) than ever before, and that therefor we are seeing the negative results of that. In truth, it is those facts plus the fact that the U.S. is no longer the world leader which propel us toward a global detonation.

The United States has experienced a weak knee-ed lib president before with Jimmy Carter. Those were rocky years, and there were major problems in the Middle East (Iran Embassy, ABSCAM, etc.) and some in Europe (the Munich Olympics, for instance). But there were not so many terrorist attacks in the U.S. under Carter as there are under Obama and the attacks in Europe under Merkel are more numerous than those experienced in the 70s.

The fact that the U.S. was in position as the world’s hegemon in the 70s mitigated the effects of weak liberal rule. It did so by limiting the scope of hostile attacks because our enemies had more to fear in terms of retaliation back then. Even though Carter was a weak leader, terrorists knew they could only do a few attacks here and there before the US would step up the retribution. The global guerrillas did not want to awaken the sleeping giant. Muamar Khadafi got a taste of that when he bombed a US commercial airliner, and Reagan dropped bombs on his residence and killed his son. Now things are different: bad guys know that under Obama they have a small window at the end of his term to hit him as hard as they want but not get hit back because Obama is even weaker than Carter, and may sympathize with those who oppose the American majority.

The tricky part of this is that Russia realizes that the world requires one nation to lead the world community as hegemon in order to defeat terrorism. and Russia realizes that the US no longer has the means or wherewithal to lead. However, when Russia tries to lead it inevitably causes conflict with the US and overall stability is therefore even further weakened as the conflicts become increasingly complex in nature. That’s why Russia went in against ISIS without much warning, fought quickly and effectively, and then got the hell out. They did not want to signal what a bunch of lying jerks our nation’s leadership is because that would mean war. That is, in addition to the proxy war in Ukraine.

To defeat terrorism, we need a strong world superpower which can clearly pursue its objectives and sweep aside the feeble states which support terrorism. Russia showed it was serious about defeating ISIS by bombing the oil sales train to Turkey, but has since that time demonstrated an inability to maintain peace and order. In the meantime, the US is also failing to stop those shipments because it is playing political games. We are playing ISIS against Assad to the greater instability of the region.

The bottom line is that the world needs one nation as its strong global leader. Having a global leader provides a sense of direction and enforcement of that direction, the result of which is global stability. The US is unwilling to lead the world at this point, but is schizophrenic in its unwillingness to allow someone else to take its place, perhaps because the others are even more incompetent. But for the betterment of humanity, the US needs to either start acting like a superpower again, or let someone else take its place.

Recommended Reading