Rather than accepting that Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe’s anti-white policies are popular among Africans, baffled liberals all over the world are attempting to explain away his expected election victory today as resulting from “thuggery and intimidation.”
The Zimbabwean election—funded by foreign aid because the country does not have enough money left to pay for it—is expected to result in yet another term of office for Mugabe, who has been president since 1980.
The extremist leftist Guardian newspaper is but one of the examples of leftists trying to seek any explanation but the obvious (that Mugabe is popular).
In an article entitled "Zimbabwe's 2013 elections explained" the Guardian tries to make out that Mugabe’s victory is solely due to violence, intimidation, and forged electoral rolls.
Anyone familiar with Third World “elections” will of course know that all these things are de rigueur in nonwhite countries (and increasingly in “white” countries with growing nonwhite populations—see the BBC’s report of July 26, 2013 on the latest such case) but they do not by any means explain the fact that Mugabe retains the support of a significant number of his people.
The Guardian, for example, claims that recent reforms signed by both Mugabe and main “opposition” leader Morgan Tsvangirai (who is actually prime minister of Zimbabwe, and formally in alliance with Mugabe), which guaranteed the impartiality of all security forces, government institutions, and state media, are worthless because by “calling for elections to be held at the end of July, Mugabe has made sure there would not be enough time for all reforms to take place.”
This is, of course, a nonsensical argument, as “reforms” of that nature can be implemented overnight by decree—all it requires is for the civil servants involved to change their behaviour.
In addition, the Guardian says, the “electoral registration has also been tainted” because “the names of more than a million people who are either deceased or have emigrated were found on the electoral roll.”
Once again, anyone familiar with the “civil service” in the Third World would expect such a situation, and not instantly ascribe it to some underhanded process.
After all, according to all established intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, the average IQ in Zimbabwe is 67.1.
To put this in perspective, on the Stanford-Binet Scale, an IQ score between 50 and 69 is officially classed as “moron.”
And the Guardian really thinks that there is something “sinister” in the fact that a nation with an average IQ of 67 is capable of maintaining a sophisticated system such as an electoral register, much less filling it with a million or more fraudulent entries?
The Guardian goes on to claim that Mugabe will win because of “thuggery.”
It claims that the “regime has reportedly distributed 50,000 members of party militias across the country. Dissidents are systematically persecuted, locked up and tortured.”
Once again, the Guardian’s “logic” is flawed. Any political party which, out of a total population of 12.75 million, can put a “militia” some 50,000 strong into the field, has massive popular support.
In Britain, with a population in excess of 60 million, not even the largest party could hope to put 50,000 activists into the field for an election!
The reality is, as liberals like the Guardian and others refuse to accept, that Mugabe’s anti-white policies are simply popular among his low-IQ supporter base.
It is this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Third World which lies at the base of all liberal thinking, and is why their policies and positions are always doomed to failure.