Donald Trump and Cecil Rhodes

by Hannes Wessels

Donald Trump is busy fracturing America over his determination to fulfil a campaign pledge and build a wall along the country’s southern border and stem the flow of illegals from South American countries. This has the ‘progressives’ and the liberal establishment apoplectic with rage and Democratic representatives in Congress and the Senate are stepping up their efforts to impeach Trump and remove him from office, partly as a result of this endeavour. Hard to understand why protecting the borders of a sovereign state and pleading for the mechanisms needed to enforce a policy of selective migration is so heinous an offence; but that is how Trump’s approach is seen by a large percentage of the citizenry. In essence this is a battle between Left and Right with Trump leading the latter camp and he sees the success of his mission as critical to the survival of his nation as a prosperous, democratic, secular nation built on the back of enterprising and industrious people, mostly from Europe and mostly Christian.

If Trump were prepared to risk all and drive his Democratic opponents over the edge with anger he could refer them to Cecil Rhodes and the successful settlement of the territories north of the Limpopo that became known as Northern and Southern Rhodesia, as an example of what can be achieved when applying high standards to who is allowed to settle in a country.

Rhodes, the evil arch-imperialist,  voracious capitalist and racist (who specified in his will with reference to his scholarship,  that, ‘No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions’) had strong views about who he wanted opening up his territories and who he wanted settling there.

The men he sought for the dangerous forays north were to be Christian, of European ancestry, well educated, well-bred, stout-hearted and preferably with military experience. These, incidentally, are the same breed and class of people who are today the most loathed, vilified and marginalised on the planet.  By accident or design the force that ventured forth did not include many men who would today fit the description of a ‘liberal’ or a ‘progressive’ and I doubt there were many ‘virtue-signallers’ screaming about the victimisation of the transgender minority. They were rambunctious frontiersman with pride in their heritage and themselves and the rest is history; they prevailed in their mission, occupied the territory, stopped the internecine warfare, introduced law and order and set about developing it. But for the task ahead more people were needed and Rhodes’s legacy regarding selective migration remained a pivotal factor so the same high standards were maintained for those wanting to settle in the new colony. In came skilled people but also unskilled, imbued with a spirit of rugged individualism, ready to take risks in the knowledge that in the event of failure there would be no ‘nanny state’ safety nets to break their falls. As a result, few people from Britain and elsewhere of socialist proclivities, who enjoyed the comfort of the welfare state bothered to apply. This controlled the contamination of the Left which would have curtailed the enterprising ‘can-do’ attitude of what was essentially the Right-wing rump of the settler class. In terms of development the result was a spectacular, unprecedented success and no nation in history has been transformed from primitivism to semi-industrialised modernity in so short a space of time.

With Southern Rhodesia on the fast-track to becoming the most prosperous, best governed country on the continent, the post WWII Western powers fell under a left-wing, socialist spell and the White settler minority morphed from heroes of Empire to international pariahs. But being made of strong stuff they decided to challenge the entire world. The reaction to their impudence was swift and the harshest economic sanctions in recent times were imposed before full scale war broke out against the forces of ‘Freedom’ powerfully backed by the Eastern Bloc countries along with support from the Western democracies.

The smell of gun-smoke brought about the rapid departure of carpet-baggers and Left-wingers although a few stayed. Garfield Todd, the leading liberal politician of the time, remained in the country under restrictive orders and lived out his fetish for smacking little girls’ bottoms. Bishop Lamont, the leading liberal cleric of the day, a sodomite in his spare time, relished the opportunity to become famous for his ‘courageous’ opposition to a ‘racist regime’ he cunningly calculated would do him little harm other than deport him which they duly did.

However, an angry world grew angrier, when, in the face of massive adversity, the economy grew and the defenders grew ever more resolute. The fight for survival of a small number of people against the might of the West and the communists lasted fifteen years. At the height of the imbroglio, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made an interesting but incisive comment when he pointed out to an incredulous audience that the ‘Rhodesia problem’, its nexus being the White settler minority, ‘could fit into a football stadium’. In a sense this was a tribute to the remarkable resourcefulness and fortitude of a select group of people whether you agreed with their position or not.

Unfortunately, the collective forces of the liberal-socialist world prevailed and forced the transfer of power to the people they insisted were the rightful rulers and most of those stalwarts of European settler descent were forced to abandon their homeland. A similar scenario now plays out in America with different faces but similar forces. If the Rhodesia tragedy is a gauge of the ultimate outcome then Trump is right; if the liberals win this fight, the USA is doomed.

 

 

 

About the Author

Highly respected, Writer, Blogger, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunter and Father.......