No rivers of blood in streets of London... yet

Back in 1960, then-British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made a speech to the Parliament of South Africa, which was quickly dubbed "the Wind of Change Speech". The theme was that independence was going to come to the British colonies in Africa and the rest of the world sooner rather than later. It was idle to stand up against the wind which was blowing, he told the recalcitrant (white) South Africans, so we might as well embrace the changes to our society which would surely follow.

As part of his government's "adjustment" to the new world of equality and diversity, the doors of Great Britain were opened wide to immigrants of any colour from any British colony. If you held a British passport -- to which people born in the colonies were entitled, at that time -- you were welcome to come and live in the mother country. And to no-one's surprise (except possibly Mr. Macmillan's), that's exactly what they did.

One of those who was not surprised was Enoch Powell, like Mr. Macmillan a Conservative Member of Parliament. After watching boatloads and planeloads of immigrants arrive from places like Jamaica, Pakistan and Nigeria, Mr. Powell made a dire prediction in what came to be called "the Rivers of Blood Speech". The gist of it was, as the name suggests, that unrestricted immigration from countries and cultures so foreign to that of Britain could only lead to social unrest and worse.

Mr. Powell said that Britain would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society. His speech included the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'" He did not actually use the phrase "rivers of blood", but the prediction was well enough understood.

This week Britons saw that, even taken literally, Mr. Powell was not far wrong.



The blood of a British soldier is not exactly "much", but there's certainly enough of it -- on the pavement, and on the hands, knife and meat cleaver wielded by his killers.

The two terrorists shot by police at the scene (in Woolwich, a part of London) were identified as "born in Britain, of Nigerian heritage". Like the Boston Marathon bombers, the murderers' families came to a new country, far from their impoverished homeland, and took advantage of the education and opportunities they were generously given by a guilt-ridden white Christian society.

Their response? To convert to "the religion of peace" (the PC term for Islam) and bite the hand that fed them. No, not "bite". More like "cut off", and worse. And yet politicians and "progressive thinkers" express surprise that such a thing could happen in a country which not only accepts but encourages multiculturalism and diversity. What they can't say is that they weren't warned!

Self-rule: the curse of sub-Saharan Africa

Following World War II, the colonial powers lost their will to rule Africa. The first indicator was British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's "Winds of Change" speech, made to the parliament of South Africa on February 3, 1960. "We're pulling out" pretty well sums up what Macmillan said.

And so the British pulled out, followed quickly by the French and Belgians, then the Spanish (never a big power in Africa in any case) and, after the Communist overthrow of the Salazar government, the Portuguese. After the Portuguese abandoned Angola and Mozambique, it was inevitable that Rhodesia would fall, and finally fortress South Africa.

So ended white man's rule in sub-Saharan Africa. The world, in a fit of liberal guilt, welcomed self-rule by the black majority. Warnings that the continent would go "back to bush" were ignored. What has happened since?

Readers who don't know that Africa is now worse off than it was in the bad old colonial days should read Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism Needs Changing, by Moeletsi Mbeki, a relative of former South African president Thabo Mbeki. Parts of it were published on July 1st in the Johannesburg Star under the headline "Colonised by the black elite".

"Nationalism in Africa has always paraded itself as a movement of the people fighting for their liberation," Mbeki says. "The reality is rather different." He points out that "African nationalism" (read "terrorism") was the preserve of a small, Westernised, black elite fighting for their place at the colonial trough. He argues that their record in power has been spectacularly damaging.

Mbeki gives the example of Zimbabwe where, once the Communist-inspired ruling party (they still call each other "comrade") consolidated its hold on power, "the ZANU-PF political elite proceeded to enrich itself to the great detriment of the national economy and of the welfare of the population at large."

Such actions have ensured that most Africans in sub-Saharan Africa are poor and getting poorer, Mbeki says. He quotes statistics from the World Bank and US National Bureau of Economic Research to show that:
* 36% of the region’s population lives in economies that in 1995 had not regained the per capita income levels first achieved before 1960 (i.e. while they were still colonies);
* another 6% are below levels first achieved by 1970, 41% below 1980 levels and 11% below 1990 levels;
* only 35 million people reside in nations that had higher incomes in 1995 than they had ever reached before.

When Walt was in Zimbabwe, he heard many older Africans decry the oppression of the black chefs and wish aloud for the return of Ian Smith. But the foreign governments who conspired to push the white man out of Africa didn't want to hear that, and still refuse to believe that black self-rule -- let's say self-misrule -- has been the disaster which these figures prove.

Mr. Mbeki's book should be required reading for all those who still think Africans are capable of governing themselves. This is not racism. This is realism!