BEHIND THE NEWS FEBRUARY 1979
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest. Neither anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad – Luke 8:17
This report and brief analysis is brought to you by Mr. Ivor Benson, National Director of the National Forum, who returned to South Africa recently after a seven-day visit to Rhodesia, during which time he addressed public meetings in Bulawayo, Salisbury and Gwelo and met a number of representative Rhodesians, including political leaders and army personnel.
As Information Advisor to the Smith Government, Mr. Ivor Benson was close to events up to the time of UDI, and he has declared consistently since then that Mr. Ian Smith was deliberately misleading his Rhodesian Front followers as to his real intentions.
Such is the maize of lies into which the Rhodesians have allowed themselves to be drawn in more than 12 years of sophisticated modern political warfare, that it is hard to know where to even begin to try to explain what has happened, let alone predict what might happen in the immediate future.
So let us cease trying too trying to refute all the lies.
Let us rather concentrate on stating the truth.
Rhodesia has surrendered, South West Africa is next on the list. Then South Africa
Who is the enemy and what are his aims?
The enemy is White Power, not Black Power.
The enemy is an invading imperialism of money, operating simultaneously, both inside and outside South Africa.
The main source of enmity is the American Eastern Establishment, centered in New York.
The South African moneyed establishment, with its powerful newspapers and its own political party, is the “internal wing” of the external enemy.
This enemy has the same central purpose all over the world where the revolutionary tide is being resisted – South Africa, Taiwan, South Korea, many of the Latin American states – that purpose being to swallow up every vestige of local autonomy.
All over the world the Money Power works in the closers co-operation with Revolutionary Marxism – two aspects of a single power.
No part of the world, no community whether large or small, must be allowed to rule itself – all must be ruled.
For there can be no World Government while all over the world there are people who continue to govern themselves.
That is the simple truth.
All the rest is, as Peter Simple of the London DAILY TELEGRAPH, put it, “a world of lies”.
All the rest is dialectics – every statement, every pre-supposition, a total inversion of truth.
In Africa an invading imperialism of money, bent on seizing the continent’s huge mineral resources, is thus represented as “liberation”. White Power becomes Black Power and new Black states, famine-stricken and languishing under bloody tyrants, are by the same dialectic magic made “free and independent”.
A KIND OF SUICIDE
There are some remarkable points of similarity between what happened in Rhodesia on January 30 and what happened at Jonestown, Guyana, in December last year.
In both cases the decisive factor was a so-called “charismatic leader”.
For the People’s Temple cultists, the result was physical suicide.
For the Rhodesians, it was political suicide. Or as Joshua Nkomo, co-leader of the Patriotic Front put it, the “dug their own graves”.
The Rev. Jim Jones’ followers are reported to have made their final decision in a mood of exaltation, convinced by their leader that they would soon be in heaven.
The reverend Ian Smith’s followers, too, were all smiles on January 30 as they went to the referendum polls to vote “Yes”, much encouraged by Mr. Smith’s promise of early “recognition” of the Rhodesian “independence”, and an economic heaven-on-earth to be inaugurated by a 3.5 billion dollar Government spending spree.
In Rhodesia, as at Jonestown, a general willingness to obey the leader’s ultimate command was reinforced with a certain amount of pressure and intimidation.
The White Rhodesians have been described as an “intellectual elite” with an unusually high standard of education and intelligence – an assessment fully endorsed by their truly amazing performance, both in the realm of economics and in military defense.
The followers of the Rev. Jim Jones, on the other hand, came mostly from the opposite end of the social scale, nearly all of them refugees from a life-style of failure and degradation in the slums of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Who would have believed that people so different in character, education and intelligence would have reacted in the same way to the challenge of precisely the same set of psychological circumstances?
In both cases there was a total abdication of personal responsibility, a total surrender of will, to a so-called “charismatic leader”, as he led them step by step to an appalling denouement.
- PIK BOTHA INTERFERES
After all these years the people of Rhodesia are still not sure whether it was South African pressure which forced them to surrender to the principle of Black majority rule, Mr. Smith has continued to argue in caucus and cabinet that he was under irresistible pressure from the South African Government to settle at any price, and South African statesmen have just as consistently denied that they have applied any such pressure. So, what is the truth?
Of this we may be sure: There was pressure applied to the Rhodesian electorate by Mr. R.F. Botha (Pik Botha), the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, a few days before the January 30 referendum, and it is highly probable that this “interference” in the internal affairs of another country was arranged between Mr. Ian Smith and Mr. Pik Botha.
What we still don’t know is whether Mr. Botha was acting with the full knowledge and concurrence of the South African Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet, or whether he was only acting on behalf of the National Party’s left wing, of which he is a leading representative.
He certainly claimed to speak on behalf of his government, and he has not been repudiated.
Mr. Botha’s interference took the form of a lengthy statement, published as a front-page in both the Rhodesian dailies on January 25, in which the opposition Rhodesian Action Party (RAP) was roundly condemned for statements said to be contained in one of its campaign advertisement.
The RAP, Mr. Botha stated, “had no right to imply that the South African Government might be more favorably inclined towards them”.
In fact, all that the RAP said in its advertisement was what South African leaders have themselves been saying all down the years, in effect that South Africa, through its policy of non-interference, can be expected to go along with any friendly government which the Rhodesians themselves elect, especially if it involves no risk of a Marxist take-over.
Mr. Botha went even further by way of urging a “Yes” vote, saying that “the South African Government considers the March 1978 Agreement a step in the right direction “and adding that the South African Government “had taken cognizance of the decision of the Transitional Government to accept and implement majority rule”.
Mr. Pik Botha’s remarks were an excellent example of “populism”, which is a form of dialectics (recommended in the TALMUD) whereby the speaker (or writer) baffles an opponent by himself doing the very thing he condemns or disclaims. Thus:
We do not prescribe policy to our neighbors, but we are entitled to be guided in our planning by decisions taken by governments in our neighboring countries.
The Rhodesian Action Party therefore has no right to imply that the South African Government might be favorably disposed towards them. Tactics such as adopted by the Rhodesian Action Party for its own narrow political ends are divisive and harmful to relations with South Africa.
Our paramount concern is the achievement of political and economic stability since such conditions have a direct bearing on the future of the sub-continent as a whole.
Evidently then, Black majority government in Rhodesia, with all that it implies, is a pre-requisite of “political stability” in Southern Africa.
KIND OF TREACHERY
Mr. Smith’s role in the Rhodesian drama raises an important question: Precisely what is the meaning of the word “traitor” in a modern political context? For Mr. Smith has already been branded a “traitor” by some of those who dared to stand out against him in the recent referendum.
If “political dishonesty” is generally considered not to mean the same as plain “dishonesty”, is it possible that some distinction must also be drawn between a “political traitor” and an ordinary of dictionary traitor?
If not, then how are we to describe a political leader who, possibly with the best intentions in the world, systematically deceived those who had placed their trust in him, pretending all the time to be carrying out their mandate while promoting a wholly different set of purposes?
An explanation of the concept of “political treachery” supplied several year ago by Dr. Gayre of Gayre, editor of THE MANKIND QUARTERLY, Edinburgh, seems to answer all the above questions:
The whole history of the White man’s retreat is one of betrayal by the moderate conservatives, who, at every stage, try to find an accommodation with the dynamic forces of change and revolution. History is replete with the disaster this brings in its train, but man never learns…..
There are, therefore, three forces, as follows –
- The activists of change: liberals, do-gooders, Communists and so-called Christian humanists.
- On the other side, there are those who are aware of the disaster which will follow and who set out to oppose the change, or at least change on essential points.
- Then, in between, there is a big mass of people in leading positions everywhere, who will not face facts, who would prefer to live in a conservative atmosphere, but rather than face up to the aggressive dynamism of the left will either remain silent or will even try to persuade the real conservatives to compromise with the extreme forces of destruction, in some blind hope that this will appease and at least gain for them some respite from the strain of making decisions.
These last Dr. Gayre condemns as “the real traitors”.
Mr. Smith, we may be sure, drew a great deal of strength from the host of businessmen and bureaucrats belonging to Dr. Gayre’s third category, not to mention the real “internal wing” of the external enemy: international companies like Anglo American, Charter Consolidated, RST (Roan Selection Trust) and Union Carbide, plus Argus Company newspaper chain which continued all the time to dominate the main channel of access to the public mind.*
INGREDIENTS OF DANGER
So, what are the prospects in Rhodesia, now that the Whites have voted themselves completely out of power?
As was only to be expected, both the United Kingdom and the Unites States Governments have declared that they will not recognize the forthcoming Black-majority elections.
So much for Mr. Smith’s complaints that those who opposed him in the referendum were making it harder for him to arrive at an accommodation with the UK, US and UN!
No doubt the so-called “Interim government” will press on with its arrangements for a one-man-one-vote election, regardless of the warnings from abroad.
But what sort of general election will this be? The main contenders will be the so-called parties led by the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and Bishop Muzerewa, each with its huge force of “auxiliaries” or former terrorists now operating like private armies and spreading terror and death among the Black population. The conflict between these groups will be compounded by a stepping up of hostilities by the real terrorists who, in their turn, are divisible into two mutually hostile groups, the followers of Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe.
And for what purpose? As we have stated on countless occasions in the past, there is positively no way of gaining recognition, the lifting of sanctions and the halting of terrorist warfare short of total surrender to the demands of the external forces.
The only stable factors in this situation are the police and army which remain firmly in white, therefore civilized hands.
In a word, as we have so often said before, the “Zimbabwean” situation contains all the ingredients of a collapse into disorder as bad as anything seen in Angola and Mozambique, the main difference being that the white Rhodesians still have armed forces which can help to see them safely out of the country.
Let us not be surprised if Mr. Ian Smith’s next step – after the April elections – will be to offer to have another general election under United Nations supervision and with a United Nations force in attendance (in The South West Africa pattern). He has already hinted at that, with his challenge to the five Security Council powers to call a conference to be attended by all the parties to the dispute.
LESSON FOR SOUTH AFRICA
Have South Africans lessons to learn from what has happened to Rhodesia?
That is a question not easily answered.
All the influences which have brought about the Rhodesian result have been present and active in and against South Africa for a number of years.
So, why should South Africa have to learn from the Rhodesian example?
The same enmity which has finally brought about a Rhodesian surrender to revolutionary forces advancing down the African continent seeks to produce precisely the same result in South Africa.
There should be no need for South Africans to go to Rhodesia for the purpose of identifying this enmity, tracing it to its source and discovering what are its methods and its aims.
What need is there for the instruction of a Rhodesian example when for so many years we have been able to watch the same revolutionary forces at work in so many other parts of the world, always employing much the same methods?
Those who have continued to warn the South Africans down the years will at least be able to illustrate and explain their warnings with examples drawn from just across their borders.
Few, however, will take notice of such warnings because, as Shakespeare reminds us “by a divine instinct men’s minds mistrust ensuing danger”.
“By a divine instinct” – that means that men are so constituted that they only learn, or rather re-learn, life’s most important lessons the hard way, by painful experience.
Therefore it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to make the great majority of South Africans understand that their situation today is almost exactly the same as that of Rhodesians just before the unilateral declaration of independence in November 1965.
‘They want our Country’
It is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to convince them that in their own country they have been caught up in a swiftly flowing tide of events which unless it can somehow be halted, will within a few years bring them to an unpleasant denouement no different that which has marked the end of Rhodesian independence.
However, there is one important difference between Rhodesia in 1965 and South Africa in 1979 which could just possibly make all the difference to the end result.
Rhodesia never was a nation, whereas South Africa is at least contains a nation.
The importance of this difference cannot be exaggerated in the circumstances of the present undeclared war.
The Rhodesians are themselves aware of the difference, for those planning to withdraw to the south are frequently heard to remark that “it will be different down there because the Afrikaners will never allow this to happen to them”.
Only time will tell whether they are right in so believing**, but this much is true. Only a genuine nationalism can offer any resistance to a revolutionary anti-nationalism.
Therefore it is reasonable to expect that there will be far more resistance to the 20th century cosmopolitan invading imperialism of money, whereas to Rhodesian there was virtually none – because there was no nationalism.
But, South Africa is not a nation – there lies the problem! South Africa is state. The only nation in South Africa is the Afrikaans one – and there are many Afrikaners who don’t belong to the Afrikaans nation. That is even more of a problem! The Afrikaners who are not nationalist (although they enjoy all the advantages of belonging to a politically dominant Afrikaans group) are balanced, as it were, by a comparable number of English-speaking South Africans, many of them post-war immigrants, who are as national-minded as any nationalist Afrikaner.
We may be quite sure of this: Only a resurgent Afrikaans nationalism can halt the present drift into politics of ever-increasing appeasement and avert an eventual overthrow of political self-determination in Southern Africa – nationalism being, almost by definition, an awareness of values which go with self-determination.
What are the prospects for such resurgence?
Afrikaans nationalism has suffered a serious reverse in the recent Information Department debacle. That is what the frantic row is all about. But reverse may be precisely what nationalism needs at this time. The Afrikaans nation was made strong by the monstrous cruelty and injustice of the Anglo-Boer War; and it has been greatly weakened by 40 years of unchallenged power and opulence.
Thus, if further hammering does not awaken the Afrikaans nation into awareness of its danger and a realization of its historic duties and responsibilities, nothing else will.
The Rhodesian debacle has come as one major shock. And another is in process of preparation in South West Africa where it is going to become increasingly clear that the external powers’ real intention is not to bring “human rights” to the population but only to establish a bridgehead for intensified hostilities against South Africa.
UNDECLARED WAR, Ivor Benson; THE GRAND DESIGN, Douglas Reed; BEHIND THE SCENE, Douglas Reed
* See BEHIND THE NEWS, January, 1979, re George Suffert report “South Africa: The Barrier Crumbles”.
** See “1898-1978: IT’S THE SAME STORY, BEHIND THE NEWS, November 1978.
SOUTH AFRICA FELL IN 1994. EUROPE, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES ARE TO FOLLOW.
STILL THE MAJORITY OF WHITES ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY DANGER.