Mugabe and the British move to regain control over Zimbabwe

The world corporate press has been going non stop against 2 African governments the last couple of years. The targets have been the governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe. Why such attention given to these 2 African governments out of a continent full entirely of unsavory governments and dictators? Is it that the US and Western European elites have suddenly become a group of benevolent saints, only concerned with the welfare of the poor Black populations of their ‘Dark Continent’? One can’t really think so.

So let us take a brief historical look at Zimbabwe now, and see why the corporate press is so hot for regime change? One does not have to be in love with the 82 year old Mugabe, current head of the Zimbabwe state, to question why our attention is focused by others in his direction. Has this attention about ‘human rights’ been consistent, coming from the European and US governments and their servile press? Yeah, right…

Let us ask several questions, then… Has the corporate press informed the world public about the economic warfare being waged by the colonialists against their former colony, Zimbabwe? Well, why not? Zimbabwe is an economic basket case today, but the US and Europeans have made it so, as well as Mugabe himself, but that’s not what the corporate press wants the public to know. They are campaigning for regime change and not the welfare of Zimbabweans. The governments and their press want to gain back direct control over Zimbabwe, not save the people living there. Look for the likes of O’Reily and the other media whores at the Fox ‘News’ stable to be shedding crocodile tears on behalf of that population though, as the Murdoch press in England routinely does, too.

Another question, too? A lot of press has been given to the dangers of an anthrax terrorist attack on the US. Has any of the pro-military/ police state press ever informed the public that the largest case of anthrax terrorism directed against people happened in Rhodesia (the white racist Apartheid state ruling over Zimbabwe) just a while back? That’s right, the Whites of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe that were intimately connected with Great Britain, used anthrax against the Blacks of that country. It was the largest such biological warfare use of anthrax in world military history.

As somebody around back then, I don’t really remember the press ever giving much a shit about the affairs of Zimbabwe back then. Now, they can’t do anything else other than blab on and on about Zimbabwe, same as they do about the Darfur in Sudan. The British, French and US governments want control back over these 2 regions of Africa. And they want the general public to think that they are being good people if they help cheer lead for that effort. Go figure? I blame our pathetic educational system here for people being so naive and gullible. How ’bout you?

Click here to read more about the anthrax biological warfare of European colonialists against their Black neighbors in Africa. This info actually was writtten by a White Rhidesian racist, too.

Super Harry kills the barbarians

One of the frequent refrains in the US is that the powerful and well-to-do war promoters here always keep their own children out of the fighting, and that many of them are ‘chicken-hawks’, gung-ho avoiders of doing the actual fighting themselves. But in Britain, along comes Prince Super War Hawk, Killer of the Pagan, and he has duly registered and true authentic ‘royal blood’, too! He’s a True Warrior Prince from the Royalty… pure breed!

Well, the US has had several more plebeian Super Heroes for the pro-war press, one of which was an American pro- football player who once tried to outdo Warrior Prince Harry. That American Super Hero evidently was not very popular among his own troops, and was killed by ‘innocent’ fire. But Super Prince of Arabia, TE Lawrence, no I meant of Afghanistan, Prince Harry, is claiming to be the truest killer of the barbarians of them all. He’s making a few dinosaurs in Britain proud that such a fossil from the dead Empire of Great Britain apparently still is around, lost in some sort of time warp, one must guess?

In this picture Super Prince MANS a machine gun, as he strolls through the brutal barrios of The Natives. But alas, Super Prince is ready to PULL OUT, and return to being only poor Clark Kent once again.

Who needs Princess Di in these modern times, when the Murdoch press can PUSH Super Prince in its tabloids? But for now, Super Prince Harry must once again remove his Super Hero cape, and return to his people. One wonders what the British population thinks of this gala show?

Friendly-fire loss in Malibu

Castle Kashan owned by Lilly Lawrence
Two Malibu outcrops stood out like sore thumbs in the fabled community not lauded for its architecture (or history). Not counting Rockford’s trailer park in Paradise Cove.

The Hughes Aircraft offices sit incredibly in the midst of Malibu’s most expensive estates. Howard Hughes installed his company in Malibu Canyon back when the Malibu Movie Colony stretched only along the beach.

The other standout was a kind of a castle, ramparts, arches and all, built in the 70s and unmatched in garishness, its large faux stones aerated by picture windows to present a visual oxymoron akin to a whiffle ball made of lead. But like a real castle it looked down on everyone, and obviously all had to look up at it.

Lord of the castle was Lilly Lawrence, daughter of an ex-Iranian oil minister and self-proclaimed “international beauty,” who instead of buying an English title at auction, went right for Princess Di’s. From beneficiary of Shah cronyism, Lawrence went to “people’s princess” of Castle Kashan.

If you’ve lived in Malibu, you might wonder why I refer to the castle in the past tense. Although the fire still rages, threatening Sweetwater Canyon from its origin in the Knolls, its first victim is now being described as a “landmark.”

Every time Malibu would suffer a wildfire, residents would lament their neighbor’s losses, particularly the scorched backdrop, but we’d always crane our heads hopeful that this time the flames might reach the castle. Really. You’d curse the fire that caused you to have to pack all your valuables into the car, haul the furniture out to the green lawn where fire would likely never reach it, and leave your home a mess of soot and soggy mud prints from the emergency housemoving. Invariably the fire never consumed the castle, and we would genuinely curse that.

Princess Diana and the end of civility

Princess Diana on Dodi Fayed's yacht a week before her deathThe Queen is the first film to be made about the woman who has presided over England for half a century. The story deals with the days following Princess Di’s fatal crash in 1997 and the personal challenge her death might have posed for the monarchy’s public relations. The same period saw Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ascendancy to power. The story gives Blair credit, where the queen appeared to faulter, for recognizing Diana as being the “People’s Princess.” And then some.

Asked about his fawning depiction of Tony Blair as man of the hour, director Stephen Frears thought it “a mark of my incredible maturity” to cast Blair in the light of his glory days, this at a time when Blair and his government have fallen irrecoverably, adding that “it’s preposterous that he’s not in jail.” In the interview Frears also makes light of whether Queen Elizabeth II is possibly really as bright as her character portrayed by Hellen Mirren. The Queen celebrates the resolve of royal blood facing a crisis. Elizabeth is both humanized and lionized, by sticking to the stiff upper lip “the world expects of us.” Frears interweaves real news footage of celebrities and the flowers flooding the Buckingham Palace gates, counting the days from Lady Di’s death to the climax when the queen finally makes her long delayed statement.

That’s when Frears lies. He lays the behind the scenes personal anguish which might have explained the dishonor the royals paid to Diana, leading to the Queen’s famous address, but then rewrites the ending. As if Mighty Casey, his vainglorious ambitions thwarted in the minor leagues, stays true to his character that day in Mudville, and now because we can all feel a little sympathy for the self-centered fella, he swings and DOES NOT strike out!!

We all were there when Queen Elizabeth took to the microphone, and no close-ups of a fictional Tony Blair’s tearing eyes, proud of his stalwart sovereign, are going to recast the disgraceful blue-blooded reaction for what it was.

And what of lingering accusations of the royal family being behind Diana’s death? What of the rape tape which Diana posited with a servant for safe-keeping which tells, it’s conjectured because the British press are forbidden to tell us, of Prince Charles interrupted sodomizing a valet. What of Lady Diana being, not even arguably, by the power of her personality, the most powerful woman in the world? But unlike Oprah or Martha Stewart, Diana was a loose cannon championing the cause of AIDs in Africa, and the fight to ban land mines, both subjects the powers that be, certainly in America, did/do not want highlighted.

The Queen‘s smartest character, Tony Blair’s advisor who supposedly coins the term People’s Princess is let to murmur early on, “It wasn’t the press that killed her.” But the subject is dropped there. Instead Blair and his crew seize upon Diana’s death like Mayor Giuliani to 9/11, being seen offering bedside comfort to a traumatized populace, and reaping the accolades. Except director Frears offers nothing behind such scenes. Blair is shown as the earnest surrogate, standing in for his monarch until she can regrasp the helm.

With the ensuing years having shown us Blair’s true colors, what do you think was the more likely scenario? A self-effacing Danny Kaye Pauper Prince or a Rudy Giuliani? I find Frears’ characterization of Blair even more disingenuous, showing Tony living in a modest flat strewn with children’s messes, taking the dinner plates to do the “washing up,” and keeping watch on world events on a television with a Nintendo game atop it. This coming from a “labor” minister who was leading the conservative counter-revolution to restructure the British economy for the elites. Perhaps Frears’ adopted class.

The Queen owes its entire first act to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, the music, the build, the black out of the familiar awful moment, and the protracted montage we needed to absorb the tragedy and understand how it’s changed us.

The great disservice that Stephen Frears does to history, and to all of us because we are still living it, is amplified by the fact that he did get Diana’s death right. Princess Di’s sudden death did change the world, perhaps more than did 9/11. The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a comeuppance. If the American people did not see it coming, the world did. That such a terrorist act was bound to happen was attested to the fact that the same people had already tried it and at the very same location.

But Diana’s death marked the end of civility, and people felt it. The third world may have been fit to burst under the weight of its post-colonial oppressors, but a great English civility had prevailed since the days of Ghandi. This was a sense that disagreement could be visceral, but apart from the brutality of the unwashed French or the uncouth Americans, a British sense of decency would rule out. Britain, not long ago the Empire, was where we got the rule of law, our rights, and everyone’s concept of a representational parliament.

The circumstances around Diana’s death would present an incredibly interesting lesson in power usurped from the people; Tony Blair’s arrangement with Rupert Murdoch for starters, instead of showing Blair reacting to the newspapers and coaxing his old queen along. The Queen is a marvelous story of two people facing adversity introspectively. Fine, except those personages were at the center of the unification of global corporate power and could not have been idle participants. As if Frears had made a film about the Titanic and chose to focus on the captain’s preoccupation with feng shui.

The 1990s saw a decline in every aspect of benevolent leadership, and I believe the premature death of Lady Diana was the curtain. It was hard those days after her death to imagine a world without her, and indeed events have proved that we were to face the worst. The turn of the century marked the ascendency of the Neocons, the political face of the globalization overlords. It meant corporate overseers with gloves off, Zionist zealotry unabashed, banks with no limits on their usury, and the world media watchdogs in the hands of the wolves.

The ruling few have their hands bloody in genocides the world over, endless wars, massacres, slavery, epidemics, poverty, famine and reckless abandonment. Before Diana’s death at least I believe they would have been concerned to wash the blood off.