A White Mugabe Would Get Attention

Eye on the Media

NYT's Kristof Admits: A White Mugabe Would Get Attention

Christopher Donovan

The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof is a bit of an enigma: an apparently white gentile male with solidly liberal leanings who occasionally flirts with the reality of genetic differences. His big concern, as with many white liberals, is Africa.

But Kristof is not quite the apologist that Walter Duranty was for the Soviet Union. He lays bare the atrocities of African regimes and does not reflexively blame whites for Africa's messes.

In his Sunday column, he actually reports that many black Africans in Zimbabwe preferred the rule of white leader Ian Smith to its present leader, black African Robert Mugabe, because under Smith, food was available.

Says Kristof, "If only Mr. Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white."

The attacks on white farmers by Mugabe and his goons — as well as horrifying violence committed against fellow blacks — should be known to white advocates. The latter has started to get attention from the Bush administration and even Britain, which recently stripped Mugabe of his "knighthood" (what it says about the West that he ever got this in the first place is too depressing to consider.)

But for Kristof, the fate of whites shouldn’t enter into the moral calculus at all. He states, “Britain squandered its influence partly by focusing on the plight of dispossessed white farmers. (That’s tribalism for Anglo-Saxons.)”

Those tribal British! All they care about is people like themselves when they should really be finding ways to help out the blacks. Of course, the sad fact is that the British have lost the normal human sense of tribalism to the point that both major parties officially endorse Britain as a multicultural, multiethnic state.

Kristof is correct that a white Mugabe would get attention. But he's wrong if he thinks the West should or will drop its double standard. The truth is that we expect such madness from black Africans, because it's perfectly in line with their past behavior. The lower IQ, quickness to violence and higher rates of pathology among blacks are a compelling explanation for that behavior, but beyond that, the madness of Africa is not the business of whites (with the exception of the attacks on whites, for which I recommend military intervention and refugee status in white countries).

Africa is a hellhole not because of the legacy of colonialism, "racism" by the white West or "failures of leadership," but because it is populated by the lowest-IQ human beings on Earth. Their evolutionary trajectory simply does not equip them to live in or make the civilized societies of the West. This is no cause for mockery or condemnation, but simple understanding and acknowledgment.

But this understanding is crucial, because whites have saddled themselves — with the prodding of men like Kristof — to feel that Africa's situation can be remedied if we simply take the right actions. Of course, it won't.

Even if the case could be made that whites should make humanitarian gestures toward Africa, this would be immoral given the present crisis facing whites. Whites need to be attending to their own people, who are quickly vanishing from the Earth. If Kristof wants a tragedy to cover, he should look into this.



Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-Kristof.html#Kristof