The Real Reason why Political Correctness
is so critically important
to the Western World

Recently on AfricanCrisis we posted the strange story of the German Navy which captured a large number of Somali pirates off the horn of Africa. Shortly after capturing these criminals who were infesting the waters, and causing mayhem to international shipping, the Germans just let them go!

Why? (See: Africa & Europe: The Useless soft Germany Navy Versus the Somali Pirates )

How is it that criminals, who in prior times would have been hanged, are now let go?

Piracy has become a rapidly increasing problem off the coast of Africa in recent months and many major navies including the American, Chinese, Indian and German navies have a presence there.

I could not understand why a handful of pirates in motor boats could become a problem. I had read, not long ago, in the book, "Against all Odds" how Eeben Barlow of Executive Outcomes had successfully fought piracy in Asia. In fact, fighting piracy of that kind, in this modern age is really easy. The Govt concerned had even forced the "registration" of all boats. When the boats were "registered" with the Govt, the Govt secretly inserted an electronic identification device in the boats. Then when navy ships were looking for pirates they merely sailed around looking for boats which were "unregistered" and homed in on them.

Piracy of this kind can be stopped with a mere machinegun. I have heard this opinion from a number of people with sound military training. It is very doable. All that is needed is for any civilian ship to have one or two on board snipers, armed with automatic or semi automatic weapons, and they can put the pirates out of business on short order. In fact, they don't even have to shoot the pirates, they can sink their boats with a large calibre infantry rifle. When the boat sinks, most, if not all, the pirates will drown anyway.

Why is it that piracy off the African coast is treated by the West with such kid gloves?

Why aren't these criminals, who are armed with AK47's shot? In prior centuries it was standard practise to hang all pirates. Why is a small problem allowed to become a big problem?

Maybe the answer lies in the fact that the pirates are AFRICAN. And in this modern world, it is wrong to punish black people (or any non-white people from Africa - since not all non-white Africans are actually blacks).

At a talk I attended some weeks ago, given by Carmi Gillon, the former head of the Israeli shin bet (the internal security), he mentioned anti-semitism. The audience there was almost completely Jewish except for myself. He mentioned at a point, in a humorous vein, that when someone non-Jewish makes jokes about Jews, that it is viewed as anti-semitic. But, Jews can make exactly the same jokes about themselves among themselves, and then it is not viewed as anti-semitic.

That got me thinking: Racism is really a modern "rule" which goes like this: Whites may not harm blacks because that is racist. But blacks are allowed to harm blacks. That is acceptable. This logic is in line with the anti-semitism expressed above. Non-Jews may not treat Jews in a certain manner because then Jews get upset and refer to it as anti-semitism. But Jews may treat each other in that way. So anti-semitism and racism, really are a "code of behaviour" that says: Different groups may not harm each other, but people within the group may harm each other.

This of course is anathema to me because in my mind, a crime is a crime. If it is a crime for a white man to murder a black man, then surely it is a crime for a black man to murder another black man? It follows logically that it is the action itself which is the issue, and not the race of either the perpetrator nor the victim. It is the action itself which is: immoral, or criminal or unethical. It has nothing to do with those involved. If laws are to be fair then they must be colour blind.

But apparently, in the modern world, this is not allowed. Is there a reasonable explanation for this?

If you will study African decolonisation carefully, you'll see some really interesting things. I used to be a skeptic when someone like Robert Mugabe claimed that there is such a thing as "Neo-Colonialism". What is meant by this? Well, the term is used to indicate that Western countries may have officially pulled out of Africa and yet, unofficially, they continue to pull the strings behind the scenes. A number of black African leaders have mentioned this over the years. Recently, I saw a documentary on the Cuban military involvement in Africa. In it, participants from Cuba, Angola, South Africa, the USA and Russia were interviewed. All those interviewed were very senior people. One Russian from the Politburo who was in charge of African affairs spoke openly of neo-Colonialism. He said that when Britain and France handed over Black nations for independence they had the political and economic (soft power), to exert a tremendous influence in those countries.

Even the ruling party in South Africa, the ANC, has mentioned in the past that the American Govt can be very pushy and demanding. In this regard, South Africa had to secretly hand over many possible Muslim terrorists to the USA and they were secretly flown out of South Africa.

The concept of neo-colonialism is actually real and has been mentioned by many people linked to Africa over the years, but the Mass Media does not mention it.

When Africa was decolonised, there was a new scramble for Africa. As the "old colonial powers" were pulling out, some, like Britain, especially through the Commonwealth of nations, tried to cling indirectly to the empire in a new form. But there were smaller powers like Portugal and Belgium who did not have that sort of power. So for them, once they lost control, they lost it almost completely. And as many European powers were pulling out, America, and even non-European colonial powers were moving in. As the old colonisers were pulling out, the neo-colonisers saw new opportunities. We could say that neo-colonialism is "soft colonialism".

A friend of mine who knows African history well told me one day, that if you look carefully at the Congo (formerly Zaire, now the DRC), that you will see that Chombe was a good possible leader but suddenly, the Americans installed Mobutu. Mobutu went on to become a "pro-Western dictator" for decades. Why was a good black leader thrown out so a harsher and more corrupt black leader could be installed? My friend says that if you study the Congo's situation carefully, then you will see that the Americans and the Swedes connived together to create incidents and a situation which put the Belgians in a spot. He says that when all was said and done you will see that the real battle behind the scenes was for the immense mineral wealth of the Congo. In the end, the mineral rights which the Belgians had owned, ended up being owned by American and Swedish interests.

Right now, in the worst governed country in Africa, under the most hideous situations imaginable, we see Robert Mugabe ruling the country. What few people know is that the best chrome in the world is found in Zimbabwe. The only other country on earth where chrome is found, is in Russia. America gets its chrome from Mugabe's Zimbabwe. To this day, Mugabe, who presides over one of the most fiendish regimes ever seen in Africa, sells his chrome directly to the USA. Chrome is a very important strategic mineral needed by the US military.

In Angola, the Marxist/Communist MPLA owns the very rich Cabinda oil region. They sell their oil directly to the USA. All the oil pumped out there is pumped out by an American oil company.

60% of the world's militarily strategic minerals lie either in South Africa or in a neighbouring country in southern Africa. America played an important role in changing the government of South Africa from white to black rule. For more information see: Original Article: How the CIA defeated Apartheid & placed the ANC in power You can also read the book: "The Pied Piper" by Dr Richard Cummings.

Another friend of mine told me a most fascinating story. He and two other friends were having an evening out. One of his friends had a senior position in a European embassy in Africa. His European friend made this remark: "The truth is no longer important. What is important is Political Correctness".

What a strange remark?

Perhaps the real answer is more stranger than one realises.

Perhaps the reason why Political Correctness is so crucial is because it is so necessary if your interests lie in grabbing hold of important raw materials found in large quantities on the African continent. It has happened in the past, for example prior to Rhodesia becoming Zimbabwe, that African leaders have threatened to cut off supplies of important materials from the West. For example, oil rich Nigeria threatened to cut off oil supplies to Britain if it supported white rule in Rhodesia.

So perhaps the real reason why Western nations tip toe around Africa and racial issues and ensure that they are politically correct, is because political correctness is a most important pre-requisite in order for them to do massive business in Africa. And here in Africa, even in Zimbabwe, you will find Canadian and Australian and other companies seeking (and finding) enormous new riches.

So the bottom line may be really simple: Political Correctness is a most important requirement in order for Western nations to continue on with their soft colonialism, or neo-colonialism. And some Western nations like the USA, have a massive military dependency on rare and critical raw materials which can only be found in Africa.

So therefore, Political Correctness is not really a fad, but in fact, a firm instruction that filters down from Government strategists, leaders and thinkers because it allows them to move around freely and to engage in wheeling and dealing in Africa for their own benefit.

To them, the truth is not important. What is important is not to irritate the Black African leaders whom they need to strike deals with. And some of these deals are of course underhanded. When South Africa recently bought R60 billion worth of weapons from European countries, it is believed by some, that as much as R10 billion was paid in "back handers" to black politicians and others involved in the deal.

Recently, in his book, "Against all odds", Eeben Barlow wrote of the strange incident when French Intelligence came to him asking him for a list of the most corruptible black people in a certain black country.

So part of neo-colonialism, apart from just striking big deals, also results in the active pursuit of black leaders WHO CAN BE CORRUPTED. Thus, the West, in its own way, aids, abets and thoroughly encourages corruption in Africa. Furthermore, if a corrupt leader knows how to handle the West, then like Mobutu or Mugabe, he can stay in power for a very long time.

This, then, is the bizarre symbiotic relationship that has grown up since Africa was supposedly "freed from Colonialism". Instead, Africa went from overt colonialism to covert colonialism where crooked deals, and warm smiles abound. Everyone is now a Politically Correct thief doing that which is best for himself and to hell with the people who actually live in Africa.
 
Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception

http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=41163&M=W&