Why Ian Smith Must Be Cast As The Villain

The real Ian Smith, the last Prime Minister of Rhodesia, that the world media could not allow the Western world to know.

A general rule of thumb I employ with the mainstream media (MSM) is that whatever they say or write, probably the opposite is true. Assuming this, I then research and try to figure out what their agenda is. The 20th of November 2019, will be the 12th anniversary of the passing of Ian Smith, the last Prime Minister of Rhodesia. It is thus timely to briefly review the MSM version of Ian Smith, flip-it 180 degrees to explore the opposite narrative, and then contemplate the MSM’s agenda.

It might surprise you what we find, and how global this has become.

Note the tag line on the top left corner for later!

The MSM Describing Ian Smith:

A very mainstream newspaper that reads like most left-centrist newspapers across the West, is The Guardian. Here are the (highly evocative and emotive) opening and closing paragraphs of their obituary of Ian Smith after his passing in 2007:

“Ian Smith, who led white Rhodesians throughout the notorious UDI period that marked the country’s unhappy transition from being a British colony to achieving full independence as Zimbabwe in 1980, has died, aged 88. He was a man who wore his mind on his face, as others wear their heart on their sleeve. His glass eye [Ed: He did NOT have a glass eye!] and half-frozen features proclaimed his obduracy before he opened his mouth to make history – by defying it for an unlikely decade and a half.

Those subjected to his nasal monotone, coloured only by the unmistakable “Rhodie” twang, are unlikely to forget the grinding, righteous whinge of a man who knew he was the only one in step and never understood why the rest could not grasp that elementary truth. This conviction never left him in his long and bitter twilight, and helps to explain how he clung to power for so long: to sustain UDI or its big brother, apartheid, tunnel vision was essential.

The cliché attached to Smith soon after he personally read out his “unilateral declaration of independence” at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1965 could not have been more apt: “in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king”. The bizarre sense of occasion that led him to choose the precise anniversary moment of the 1918 armistice to seize power on behalf of the white 5% of the Rhodesian population was nevertheless a useful reminder to his British “kith and kin” of his wartime service as an RAF fighter pilot – when “Smithy” was shot down, lost an eye and had plastic surgery for facial burns….

…. To mild general amazement, he did not follow the example of 100,000 of his fellow whites, who fled to South Africa as UDI crumbled. He left parliament when the reserved white seats were abolished and returned to his farm. He lived there quietly, unprotected, his door always open to a rapidly dwindling band of interviewers. His loyal wife, Janet died in 1995, and his son also predeceased him; he leaves a stepson and stepdaughter. To visitors he expressed not a word of remorse or regret for his actions. When it came to Africans, he was paternalist at best and at worst an unreconstructed white racist inherently incapable of conceding equality.

As the new Zimbabwe effectively became a one-party state under the gifted but autocratic Mugabe, as terrible droughts undermined the economy and confidence of what was so recently one of the richest and most fertile African countries and as Aids cut a swathe through the population, the old pariah, defiant and bigoted to the last, could not resist saying, with the familiar Smithy whine: “I told you so.”…”

The Guardian makes sure we understand that Ian Smith was not only thoroughly unlikable but apparently also highly irritating in person. Even in death, Ian Smith cannot be afforded any redeeming features nor even a bland, unremarkable, tribute. For some reason the Guardian lied that Smith had a glass eye – he did not! Most of the Guardian’s descriptors are so petty and detailed, one wonders if they are reciting an old script describing how an actor should imagine and play a fictional character who is the villain in a play or movie! But what movie?

Ian Smith at home on his verandah, with wife Janet.

Meanwhile, “Gifted” Mugabe is afforded some redemption and exoneration despite this article being published in 2007. This is when the entire world knew that his brutal regime had slaughtered tens of thousands of the ‘wrong’ blacks, destroyed the economy, incited and sanctioned the murder of white farmers and, like minor warlords, Mugabe, his wife and cronies simply took whatever property or business they wanted, when they wanted it and flew on their private jets until the nation was thoroughly looted.

So now we “flip-it” and explore the opposite to the MSM’s narrative.

The Ian Smith Black & White Rhodesians knew:

Ernest Mtunzi, the former UK Representative of Joshua Nkomo said:

“Smith was misunderstood in a lot of ways. He is an African [and] understands the African mentality. It wasn’t his problem what happened in Rhodesia. He came in [to power] in 1965 after Winston Field, so he was along the system that had been created. If you look at the development of Rhodesia, Smith contributed enormously [to] that. It didn’t only benefit the whites, it benefited the blacks.”

Source: Ian Smith – A Bit Of A Rebel, 1:22 minute mark. Ernest Mtunzi also recalls Ian Smiths efforts and courage to bring about a peaceful agreement in 1975 at the 3:31 minute mark. His statement at the 8:43 mark closes this article.

Patrick Kombayi, former Gweru mayor, businessman and opposition politician, said Zimbabweans had much to thank Smith for:

“The roads that we are using today were all built by Smith. All the infrastructure is Smith’s. We never suffered the way we are suffering now because Smith took care of the economy that supported all people and they had enough to eat.

When he left power the pound was on a par with the Zimbabwean dollar, but President Mugabe has killed all that.”

The “Gifted” Mugabe achieved an inflation rate of 231 million percent and currency worth less than toilet paper.

Dr Peter Hammond a White Rhodesian, historian, Christian pastor and witness to the Rwandan Holocaust, found Ian Smith to be an honest, straightforward man who lived an incredibly simple life without dozens of armed guards and pageantry. Unlike Mugabe:

“The first time I saw Prime Minister Ian Smith, it was as a young boy of 14-years old, standing outside the Bulawayo Club in Rhodesia. I had heard from my Father that the Prime Minister was going to visit. Expecting some impressive entourage, I was standing by the entrance in Eighth Avenue with my cat, Tim. I can still remember my surprise as I saw a rather humble Peugeot 404 park in front of the Bulawayo Club and out stepped Mr Ian Smith. The Prime Minister was completely alone. There was no driver, or adjutant, no bodyguards, or policemen, visible anywhere. The Prime Minister had driven himself alone to the Club. He stroked my cat, who was sitting on the wall and smiled at me, then walked into the Club!

Ian Smith often rode to work. Fuel rationing was borne by all.

Almost 10 years later, I was in Harare, on Samora Machel Avenue when Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe sped past. The contrast with Ian Smith’s arrival could not have been more acute. First came 8 motorbike outriders, then police cars, armoured luxury Mercedes Benz’s with tinted windows, followed by another police car and a truck load of soldiers with heavy weapons, sirens blaring. All vehicles on both sides of the road had to come to a complete stop at the side. This, I was informed by residents, was how Mugabe travelled every day!”

Dr Hammond continues:

“Over the last 20 years of his life, I frequently had the privilege of having lunch, or tea, with Mr Smith. We read the Scriptures and prayed together on a number of occasions and I interviewed him for radio. On one occasion, when we were discussing the Second World War, Mr Smith grew serious. He had devoted six years of his life flying in the Royal Rhodesian Air Force. With the outbreak of the Second World War, he joined the RRAF and served in 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron. He flew Hawker Hurricanes, serving in Egypt, Lebanon, Persia, Iraq, and then finally in the North African Desert War. He served at El-Alamein and Tobruk and was severely injured in a crash landing. He suffered a broken jaw, broken leg, broken shoulder and severe facial wounds. It was thought that his back was broken, but it turned out to be, as he put it, “only buckled”. After 5 months of recuperating under expert medical attention in Cairo, he returned to active service, flying Spitfire Mark IX’s.

It was during the Italian campaign in 1944 that he was shot down. He had to jettison his canopy, release his harness and turn the Spitfire upside down, so that he could drop free, pull his ripcord and parachute to safety. For the next five months he evaded enemy patrols, joined up with the local Resistance and later crossed the Alps on foot, to link up with Allied forces in France…

“With hindsight”, Mr Smith declared to me, “We fought on the wrong side. The real enemy was communism. We did not realize it at the time, of course, but we were not really fighting for Christian civilisation and freedom, because we were allied to Stalin’s Russia. Instead of freeing Europe, we helped Stalin enslave half of it under communism.”…”

Thus, in contrast to The Guardian’s petty and spiteful obituary caricature, we discover that Ian Smith was a modest man, courageous, responsible, selfless, thoughtful and deeply regretful of playing a small role in the INVOLUNTARY ENSLAVEMENT of half of Europe to vicious Communist forces.

On the flip-side, we discover that Ian Smith focused, even during the Rhodesian Bush War and global sanctions, on developing the economy and infrastructure that elevated every Rhodesian, black and white. We also listened to him speak as an old man with warmth, inflection and intelligence (and no glass eye!).

So far, the only “righteous whinge” (as per The Guardian’s words) is that by The Guardian in their disrespectful obituary for Ian Smith. What might be their agenda?

Why is the anti-Rhodesian narrative so critical to today?

Analyzing The MSMs Agenda – It Is Vicious, Double Speak

The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate, to the point that approximately half the black population has left and still, a third of the remaining population are dependent on food aide. Further, millions are regressing to pre-industrialization conditions. These include no clean running water, few flushing toilets, sporadic electricity, rare garbage collection, no medicines, no new schools, no repairs to old schools nor medical clinics built in Rhodesia all now decaying, no mechanical transport and no VOTING rights.

However, all are entitled to enjoy the rise in disease and severe beatings for not liking the new President’s unilateral decisions about fuel price hikes, currency changes and China’s new apartheid city under construction.

How does the global MSM respond to this hellish and worsening state of affairs? As if it was a well-oiled machine!

Examining The MSM, A Well Oiled Machine

1. Rhodesia – The Forbidden Word

The MSM has virtually ceased mentioning the name Rhodesia in any Zimbabwe related articles. Instead Rhodesia is now referred to by the euphemism “once was…”. For example, Zimbabwe ‘once was’ the breadbasket of Africa. Or, Zimbabwe “was once…” the leading economy… If Rhodesia is mentioned there is always a disparaging slur or term attached to it.

2. Rhodesia – The New Extremist, White Supremacist Slur Word

The MSM increasingly slurs and portrays anyone who has a positive view or fond recollection of Rhodesia, and thus Ian Smith, as an extremist, White supremacist and most likely a terrorist!

Ernst Mtunzi states:

“Smith was being realistic-if you give people something before they are ready [for it] they are going to mess it up. And that has happened. If he had had the opportunity to work with the people [and] help bring them up, Zimbabwe would be a better place now. Smith did make it better during his government. There is no reason why he could not do that if he had been allowed to go on.”

If only we could talk with Ernst Mtunzi today and inform him that statement he made post-Rhodesia, now qualifies him, as a White Supremacist:

This lengthy and dramatic piece by the NYT Magazine borders on hysteria at times. However it uses some very revealing language:

“All the talk right now among people in the alt-right and the broader white supremacist movement is about the need for a white ethno-state,” she said. “And when you praise Rhodesia, in this context, what you’re praising is violence to that end.”

“There were no defenses for apartheid regimes and colonialism 20 years ago,” Beirich added. “And now all of a sudden we’re seeing this stuff pop up.”

This is Beirich of the SPLC. The very same SPLC tracking the demise of White America like a business Key Performance Indicator for success. Apparently tracking the replacement of Whites, White Genocide, is not “an exhortation to war” yet opposing it might be.

The Big Question -Why Does Ian Smith & Rhodesia Need To Be Vilified?

Why would MSM be so concerned about people having a positive impression of Ian Smith and Rhodesia? Perhaps it is not just because they were obsessively pro-Mugabe, but because they have another agenda in mind for the future of all Western nations!

There is a very obvious agenda behind the fanatical vilification of Ian Smith, to the point of a major MSM outlet inventing a rather silly yet creepy-glass-eye-lie to create a sinister caricature of a very decent, respected and courageous White African man.

Share, re-blog and print options:

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Graham B. Tredray says:

    I lived in Rhodesia in the time of Mr.Ian Smith, first and foremost he was a gentleman. he looked after the blacks as well as the whites. The British Labor blackguard Harold Wilson led to the demise of Rhodesia and Mr. Ian Smith. May Wilson and his Labor party rot in hell, ironically the British electorate just found out how low they can be.

  2. Ghost says:

    People ALWAYS misquote Ian Smith. This quote has appeared in 1000s of news programs and newspapers since the 1970s.
    It has always been cut to mean something compelty different than waht he said.
    “Let me say it again. I don’t believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia—not in a thousand years.”

    The part omitted due to ignorance and/or malevolence:
    “Let me say it again. I don’t believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia—not in a thousand years. I repeat that I believe in blacks and whites working together. If one day it is white and the next day it is black, I believe we have failed and it will be a disaster for Rhodesia.”

    The educational, financial, property requirements for the franchise were met by more whites than blacks.
    This is provided the truth that the country was 7 million blacks and 250,000 whites (roughly).

    One should now be able to understand the quote.

    In Conclusion…
    If the democracy within that state was to turn majority black over night.
    (IN OTHER WORDS)
    If the democracy were to remove the qualifications for the franchise (i.e. unrestricted universal suffrage),
    “…I (Ian Smith) believe we have failed and it will be a disaster for Rhodesia.”

    P.S.
    The intention of this post is not to convince you, it is more so to re-affirm my thoughts in a structured form.
    Many people such as yourself have taken this phrase out of its specific context.
    This makes me upset. This is because the tactic is rather low brow. Good day.

  3. Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website? My blog site is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would truly benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you. Cheers!| а

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll Up