Posts Tagged ‘Live Aid’

History Debunked on the Genocidal Brutality of the Hero of ‘Hotel Rwanda’

October 1, 2021

Simon Webb, the main man of the History Debunked channel on YouTube, has today put up a very revealing video exposing the horrific reality behind the hero of the 1990s film, Hotel Rwanda. Set during the Rwandan genocide, the film told the story of how its hero, Paul Rusavajena, a Hutu, saved the lived of a thousand Tutsis by providing them sanctuary in the hotel he managed. He claimed he did this on his own, but the fact is that the hotel was occupied by UN peacekeeping forces, who were the real protectors of the Tutsis. Survivors have alleged that instead Rusavajeni extorted money from them and gave room numbers to Hutu murder gangs. Despite this a film was made of the events with Rusavajena’s collaboration, which made him into a hero. And he did very well from the film. It was very popular with what Webb describes as White liberals. Rusavajeni became rich and bought two houses, one in Texas and the other in Belgium. However, after the war in Rwanda ended, Rusavajeni was actively involved in the terrorist group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, which particularly targets women and children in its attacks, and founded his own terrorist group, the FLM. He has been exposed however and arrested. Last week he was tried for his crimes and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.

Webb tells this unedifying story in order to attack the double standards he believes White liberals have towards Blacks. If a White man commits and assault, he is punished with the full force of the law. If a Black man commits a similar offence during a robbery he is committing, White liberals will attempt to excuse him by saying that he was desperate because he was unable to get a job through racism. And while Webb claims that he believes that all peoples and politicians, whether White, Black or Asian, can be just as greedy, brutal, prejudiced and xenophobic, White liberals believe non-Whites to be somehow far nobler. Thus, if a famine occurs in Africa, Webb wonders whether it is due to the local leader stealing aid money and spending it on guns or hiding it in a Swiss bank account. White liberals, however, will blame it on the international banking system and colonialism. And if Black Africans turn on each other and fight terrible genocidal wars, like Europeans did in World War II and the Holocaust, this should be offset by finding a Black hero, who shows the essential nobility of his people by standing against it. This all shows the low standards White middle class liberals apply to Blacks, and consequently their low and patronising view of them.

Much of the poverty in Africa and elsewhere in the Developing World is due to the West in one way or another. It has been hampered by crippling debts with international banks with resulted in the nations of the Third World making huge interest payments which were far larger than the initial sums borrowed. Africa and other nations like it are kept poor through the neo-colonial agreements made with their former imperial masters during decolonisation. These agreements forced the newly independent nations to concentrate on producing raw materials, such as agricultural products and minerals and prevented them from industrialising. There are a large number of such nations producing the same goods and because competition is great, prices can be kept low. The strictures against industrialisation prevents them from developing industries producing finished products, such as, say, cars, for which they could charge more and diversify their economies.

However, much of the poverty in the Developing World really is through the corruption and brutality of the region’s rulers. Way back in the 1990s the Financial Times stated that the corruption in many African nations was so great that they were kleptocracies, who were only called states by the grace of their western partners. Just how nasty this corruption is was described by a visitor our local church hosted last year from Africa. This gentleman had had a very hard childhood, and was several times at death’s door from starvation. His family had had some property to support themselves at one point, but this was stolen from them. As for xenophobia and racism, many African countries were created by amalgamating territory from different tribes, many of which were historical enemies. Nigel Barley in his book, The Innocent Anthropologist, describes how some Cameroonians would angrily denounce western racism, while sneering and reviling their own country’s Dowayo people whom Barley was researching. They did not, however, regard this as racism. And famine and the looting of western aid money have been used as an instrument of genocide by the continent’s dictators.

Some of you will remember Band Aid, the charity record produced by various western pop stars, and the Live Aid global concert in 1985, organised by Bob Geldof to raise money to help the victims of a terrible famine in Ethiopia. But it’s been revealed since then that precious little money or food actually reached the victims. It was stolen by the Communist military dictatorship to prevent it reaching the victims of the famine, who were part of a tribal rebellion.

As for middle class White liberals viewing Blacks and other non-Whites as somehow nobler, I’m afraid there’s something to this too. This ultimately comes from the myth of the Noble Savage which emerged in the 17th century. This viewed the First Nations of America as somehow more noble than Europeans as they were uncorrupted by civilisation. Diderot and the philosophes of the French Enlightenment produced a similar myth of the people of Tahiti when they were encountered by western explorers in the 18th century. To European intellectuals like Diderot, the people of Tahiti lived a freer, more natural life untouched by the artificiality of European culture. In the 1960s and ’70s one of the currents among western left-wing intellectuals was Third Worldism. Impressed by the experiments in socialism by some Third World governments and the apparent lack of materialism amongst their traditional societies, these intellectuals similarly believed that these peoples were somehow more nobler than those of the west. They looked to them to start the socialist transformation they hoped would soon spread throughout the world

As for the left excusing Black criminality and violence through appeals to poverty and deprivation due to racism, that has also occurred. One of the right-wing YouTube channels last week posted a video showing how the supposedly left-wing American media had provided such excuses when covering the case of a Black man responsible for a racial assault.

Against this is the far more obvious obvious, and far better known negative view of Blacks and other non-Whites, which has resulted in their abuse and exploitation and which still supports continuing discrimination against them in the west. One result of this is that not only may Blacks and some other ethnic groups have a higher unemployment rate and experience greater poverty than Whites, but they may also receive tougher sentences for crimes they have committed.

Rusavajeni isn’t the only supposed hero who has been exposed as a much darker figure than portrayed in film. Oscar Schindler, whose rescue of his Jewish employees from the horrors of the Third Reich was depicted in the 90’s film, Schindler’s List, has similarly been alleged to have been an extremely exploitative employer. And it’s fair to say that many of the great heroes of history are far darker and more morally ambivalent, especially when viewed by modern standards.

Blacks and other ethnic groups aren’t any more or less virtuous than Whites, and should deserve the same treatment. Just as they shouldn’t be demonised, monsters like Rusavajeni shouldn’t be idealised either because of the colour of their skin.

The Paris Bombings: A Sign of Islamist Weakness?

November 22, 2015

This might sound absurd, but I do wonder if the atrocities committed last week in Paris by ISIS were a sign of that organisations weakness, rather than its strength. Of course the organisation would like to present these as proof of its extensive reach, and that no-one in Europe is safe from their attacks. They’d like us to think that at any time, their warriors can come forward, kill and maim, before either dying in a hail of bullets, or fading back into the crowd.

And if they fall, they want us to believe, that there are thousands of others waiting to take their place.

Well, that’s what they’d like us to believe. They’d also like us to believe that they have the support of untold millions of Muslims, all ready to die for the jihad against the Kaffir. Which is just about everyone, who doesn’t believe in their weird form of Islam.

I think the opposite is true, simply by the fact that they have targeted Paris. I came across a complaint on one site by someone with an Islamic name, complaining that 92 per cent of all ISIS’ victims have been Muslims, but after the Paris attacks ‘White people think it’s all about them.’ I dislike the tone of racial bitterness, but think that the point is a good one. The vast majority of the people butchered by the jihadis probably are Muslims. I’ve blogged before about how they kill, beat and maim Muslims, who don’t sign up to their crazed theology, and demolish mosques and other Muslim shrines they considered ‘un-Muslim’. Some of the Muslim places of worship and veneration they’ve destroyed are nearly a millennium and half old. If they’re somehow ‘un-Islamic’, then it’s been lost on the builders and generations of worshippers for centuries. Mysteriously, only ISIS have realised just how un-Islamic they are after all this. I’m saying this to show just how peculiar and sectarian ISIS’ interpretation of Islam is.

From what I’ve read and seen on the news, the actual number of fighters ISIS can mobilise in Iraq and elsewhere is actually quite sure. Where they’ve got support, it’s because they’ve kept on the technicians and engineers managing the towns they take. So when a town falls to them, its people still have electricity and water.

I can remember reading in one of the papers, or perhaps it was Private Eye, that the IRA deliberately concentrated its bombing campaign in Britain, rather than Ulster. They found out that support tended to wane when they murdered people in the Six Counties. It’s hard to keep up your supporters’ hatred for their victims, if they physically see people in the areas they personally know being killed, and the suffering of the bereaved and wounded.

So terrorists have to concentrate on people their supporters won’t see, except on TV screens, whom they can demonise and deny any human feelings or value to. After all, their supporters won’t meet them personally, work with them, or even have to walk along the same streets they use on their way to and from work in the morning. No personal contact means no sympathy. Victims on TV screens don’t generate quite the same shock and sympathy as those murdered on the same streets on which others live and work. They’re just images, and as Sting sang way back in the Live Aid concert, ‘You can turn it off if you want to’.

And Goebbels also realised that if the Nazis wanted to gain the support of the peoples of the countries they occupied, they should be treated leniently. Harsh treatment would only alienate people and increase resistance. If a Nazi leader in one of the occupied countries was assassinated, instead of carrying out mass killings in retaliation, they should respond by inflicting only a trivial, but irksome punishment. Like confiscating everyone’s bicycles. It was a policy that unfortunately did have some success, until Hitler overruled him in France and started murdering whole villages. That had the opposite it, and increased sympathy for the resistance, and hostility to the invaders.

My guess is that something similar is happening now with the Paris bombings. They need to strike at the West, at people they can demonise as remorseless, infidel oppressors after butchering Muslims in the areas they occupy. Perhaps they were even rattled by the exodus of the Syrian refugees. They can hardly represent themselves as the true defenders of all true Muslims when many of those true Muslims have shown they’d rather live among the infidels in Europe than amongst their glorious caliphate.

So I think that it’s likely the terrorist bombings in Paris are a sign of weakness, rather than strength. It’s a fa├žade, in order to make us overestimate the true strength of their support. ISIS are still extremely dangerous – you only need a very small number of committed terrorists to wreak extensive devastation, but I believe this actually shows the weakness of their support in Iraq and Syria, not their strength.

They’re also hoping that we’ll over-react, so that they can pose of the true defenders of Islam against infidel Western aggression. Let’s be realistic about their aims and the true size of their support, and treat them accordingly. This needs careful, selective action, not the application of further brute force.