“It is homeland or death”: From British colonialism to the Zimbabwean liberation war

Picture of the Great Enclosure, part of the Great Zimbabwe ruins (courtesy of Wikimedia).
Picture of the Great Enclosure, part of the Great Zimbabwe ruins (courtesy of Wikimedia).

Every day the Western bourgeois media concocts another story about Zimbabwean President Robert Gabriel Mugabe’s faults. [1] The “human rights” organizations like Amnesty and “Human Rights” Watch join in on the charade, siding with the opposition in the country, which is predictably backed by the United States and the West. As a result, the revolutionary state of Zimbabwe is rocked by political turmoil because the neoliberal opposition leads to polarization, not due to the policies of Mugabe and the ruling Zanu-PF party. The masses of Zimbabwe are “one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death” as Reason Wafawarova, an Australian political writer for the government-owned newspaper, The Herald, writes at the bottom of many of his editorials. In order to recognize this perspective, this article will examine where Zimbabwe’s history from before European contact into the last days of the 1960s.

The history of Zimbabwe dates back to years before the first White imperialist would be be out of their womb. The earliest kingdom in the region may date back to 500 C.E.. with the area known as Great Zimbabwe settled in the 11th century, and more substantially by the thirteenth century, with many states around the region “built around stone forts.” [2] The term Zimbabwe can be used to designate, at a minimum, the Zambesi-Limpopo cultures. These cultures, with peoples who were state-builders and iron users, flourished in the region of present-day state of Zimbabwe, in the centuries before European arrival. [3] During the pre-European period, the area was part of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, an African civilization lasting from the eleventh century (roughly 1220) to the fifteenth century (roughly 1450) which was called “Monomotapa” by the Europeans, with building of large stone palaces, which were known as “Zimbabwe.” [4] This empire had access to mineral resources and coastal trade, mainly with traders from the Asian continent, especially China.

The famous stone ruins at Great Zimbabwe are worth describing. Near the capital of “Southern Rhodesia” in the 1960s, Salisbury (present-day Harare), there were “two outstanding buildings” which were named by Europeans the “Acropolis” and the “temple”/”elliptical building,” with the plain beneath the “Acropolis,” stands a “solid fortress, with strong battlements” which is made from local granite, constructed by Zimbabweans. The complex building is “300 feet long, 220 feet broad” with walls that “were 20 feet thick and 30 feet tall” along with stepped “recesses and covered passages, the gateways and the platforms” which were hewed out elaborately with “soapstone bird-gods” inside and outside the structure. [5] Walter Rodney added that there were “encircling brick walls” at this site, and in other parts of the African continent where Bantu-speaking people were inhabitants, which was “characteristically African” and that undoubtedly a large amount of labor was needed to construct buildings. [6] He added that such workers likely came from particular ethnic groups with possible subjugation and subsequent social class delineations, but that there wasn’t simply “sheer manual labor” because the structures themselves had a level of advanced “skill, creativity, and artistry” which went into construction of the walls, doors, inner recesses, and decorations of the buildings. There were also great brick constructions, which dated back to the 14th century, which were commonly referred to as “temples” which served religious purposes since the religious aspect of development in that society was greatly important, just as it was across the African continent. [7]

The various societies that constituted a developed (and advanced) Zimbabwean culture lasted a total of a thousand years. People constructed dams for irrigation, raised cattle, sowed grain, and traded across the Indian Ocean, with chiefs enjoying “fine pottery or china” while sitting at-top of warring cultures. [8] These cultures, with no system of writing, were “highly stratified,” with chiefs and priests, miners, and specialized craftsmen, the latter who created ornaments with exact skill and lightness of touch. [9] There was also mixed farming, with cattle valued as important work animals, and major terracing and irrigation which is comparable to that of ancient Rome, or civilizations in Asia, making Zimbabweans, what we now would call “hydrologists.” [10] In the society itself, there were several ethnic groups which mixed: Khosian type hunters or “Bushmen” who were long-time residents, and newcoming Bantu-speakers from the north, all of which had varying pottery styles and burials, with certain ethnic groups, likely, relegated to inferior status so that “labor for agriculture, building, and mining” as necessary for societal needs. [11]

While the kingdoms long fought off “barbarian invaders,” they couldn’t stand against the Portuguese. After the collapse of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, there was the Kingdom of Mutapa, which the Portuguese confronted in the 1500s. This empire, first ruled by Mwene Mutapa, from 1415 to 1450, who appointed governors to rule over numerous localities outside the capital, spreading from Zimbabwe to Mozambique’s hinterland, with the center of the Mutapa empire at Great Zimbabwe at first, and later moving northward. [12] While those living in the region at the time were predominantly Sotho-speakers, many of those in the ruling class were pastoralists who had religious rituals with objects symbolizing cattle, possibly meaning that cattle owners were honored in society, and paid homage to their ancestors. As Immanuel Wallerstein argues, the Portuguese went on the full offensive, sacking coastal cities, reducing Indian Ocean trade, which was a “severe blow to Zimbabwe peoples” as the Portuguese, with firearms, went into the interior, taking sides, and undermining “the whole structure” of the kingdom. [13] Still, they were too weak to establish a colonial administration, only having enough power to destroy and cause destruction.

This could have been helped by the fact that in Zimbabwe and Congo, social organization was low until the 15th century. This was even the case despite significant political structures in the area as tentacles of the transatlantic slave trade encroached on Africa. [14] In later years, as the Mutapa empire waned and dissipated in 1760, there was the Rozvi empire, lasting from 1684 to 1834. The lords of the both empires encouraged production for “export trade, notably in gold, ivory, and copper” with Arab merchants living in the kingdom. The Zimbabwean region, at the time, was still connected to the “network of Indian Ocean commerce.” A “single system of production and trade,” was organized by collecting tribute from other states. [15] In later years, the Mthwakazi, a Ndebele kingdom, existed until the late 19th century, when the British colonists come into the picture. Despite the fact that indigenous kingdoms in present-day Zimbabwe ultimately faltered, there is no doubt that such development showed that there were advanced societies on the continent before the Europeans arrived. The idea that there was some “dark continent” with people running around like “savages” as European imperialists imagined in their racist, colonialist minds is utterly false.

In 1889, the British South African Company came to Zimbabwe, later naming it “Rhodesia” after British imperialist Cecil Rhodes. Not only did this name override the indigenous name of Zimbabwe, which came from the Shona language and meaning venerated or stone houses, but it showed that the age of imperialist exploitation was at hand. In 1895, African history was whitewashed when a prospector was sent by the South African company to exploit the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, making it harder to know what the gold smelters of Zimbabwe produced years earlier. [16] History was lost to greedy White settler capitalism. Luckily, while most of the “copper and gold objects were largely destroyed and melted down” by 1902, similar objects at the Mapungubwe have been found, objects which were “unravaged by Europeans with a civilizing mission.” As a result, historians can recognize the reality of African and Zimbabwean history, not the whitewashed one “handed down.” Even with this, there is no doubt that Cecil Rhodes, his imperial agents, and “settler pests,” came in to Zimbabwe to “rob and steal,” coming north from present-day Botswana to raise a flag at (Mount) Harare, later renamed Salisbury by the White settlers. [17] While these new invaders marveled at “surviving ruins of Zimbabwe culture,” they assumed, from their Eurocentric perspective, that it had been built by White people.

This exploitation went beyond the erasure of culture. In the economy of Southern Africa and Rhodesia under British colonialism, Africans were treated as cheap labor who were prohibited from growing cash crops so their labor could be exploited by White “owners.” [18] These “owners” included those such as Standard Bank, a financial organization which was founded on loot of Rhodes and De Beers, headquartered in London, which expanded from the Cape Colony to Mozambique, Rhodesia, and Bechuanaland (present-day Botswana) in 1895. [19] Still, this was not accepted without resistance. There were numerous bloody battles between the indigenous African population and invading settlers. [20] During this time, when power began to be exclusively held by Whites, native Africans engaged in rebellions against White settlers, but these rebellions were crushed. [21] This didn’t stop Robert Mugabe, a Zimbabwean revolutionary, who was pivotal in the anti-colonial struggle, to see those who rebelled as first African revolutionaries in Zimbabwe. He remembered how folklore about past struggle was told to them by their parents so they could explain “how White men came to the country, how he grabbed the land.” [22] Mugabe also added that

“In a society where you have a class whose main purpose and accepted privilege is to exploit others, naturally it rebuffs. If the majority of people are being oppressed, being exploited, you can’t avoid, if you have any moral principles at all, the call to do something about it.”

In the years that followed, the British South African Company continued to control the British colony of Rhodesia. In 1923 this changed. As a result of plans made by White British colonists, settler migrants came to the colony after WWI with the London government granting the settlers a “Letters Patent Constitution” which made it a “self-governing colony.” [23] This designation meant that settlers had the right to secede or not, but the British retained “control over defence and foreign policy, certain reserve powers” which included issuing discriminatory legislation to control the African population. Hence, the British colony of Southern Rhodesia was born, the following year, comprising the area of the republic of Zimbabwe, founded in April 1980, splitting from the Northern section, called “Northern Rhodesia,” covering the area of the independent republic of Zambia, formed in October 1964. As the years went on, the oppression mounted. While the idea of “reserve powers” was supposedly to protect African interests, it became ineffective with the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 revised in 1941, and in a number of other times, a law that formed the basis of the “social and racial structure” in Rhodesia. [24]

Even with the settlers with official power, the British monarch in the colony itself is represented by the governor and there were “British errand boys” who lived as White settlers. The greedy mentality of the colonists led to more divisions. Such colonists divided the country into two portions: the “native” area for Black Africans and Crown or European land for White settlers. [25] Predictably, the “rich and fertile land” was occupied by White settlers and the “sandy, semi-dry land” given to Black Africans, land from which they can be expelled from if minerals are found or settlers want to buy a farm in the area. Adding to this insult were laws on the books, enacted in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, which evicted Africans from “European land,” gave the government control of all the aspects of African life, and gave each family eight acres for “living in farming.” [26] The latter measure was one of social control, in an attempt to keep Africans poor and give White settlers “cheap and exploitable labor for the mines, farms, light and heavy industries.” Hence is fundamentally the reason for why the fight over land is so important in present-day Zimbabwe.

In the 1950s there were other sea changes in Southern Rhodesia. While the White settlers celebrated “sixty years of progress” in 1950, oppressed Africans did not see it the same way. African civilization had become the largely the domain of Christian missionaries, with different forms of education (“European,” “African,” “Asian,” and “Coloured”)  “separated budgeted for.” [27] To enforce the inequality, more was spent on European education than on African education. In 1953, officially, the structure of the colony changed, with the creation of the Central African Federation (CAF), comprising the areas of present-day Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi (Nyasaland), in an effort led by Southern Rhodesian settlers under the direction of Godfrey Huggins. [28] To reinforce this, the British colony received, between 1950 and 1958, 10 armored cars, 22 Spitfires, 32 fighter aircraft, 16 trainer aircraft, 8 transport aircraft, 2 light transport aircraft from UK, and 18 bomber aircraft, all from from London, while NATO accompanied this by providing bombers and armaments. [29]

Of course, this action was done without the approval of Africans. As the settler oppression became even more ruthless, “African resistance rekindled” against racist laws, enacted to maintain settler dominance, and against the idea that racial discrimination was the “order of the day” in Zimbabwe. [30] In 1957, a chapter of African National Congress (ANC) organized in the country, led by Joshua Nkomo, with the chapter joining the ANC in South Africa which had been created in 1912. [31] The following year, as the record shows, Nkomo began his contact with the Soviets, which would prove as a major force in the liberation struggle to come. [32] During this time period, the political aspirations of the Black masses seemed modest, as nationalists only wanted simple political rights which they demanded in clearly nonviolent demonstrations. [33] This perception was also because the struggle was reformist since the major groups were not forceful or anti-capitalist. [34] However, after demonstrations were banned by the colonialist government, there was more frustration, with moderation turning to militancy and passive resistance turning into civil disobedience. The stage was set for set for full scale civil war.

In the 1960s, the anti-colonial struggle in Zimbabwe heated up. In December 1961, after frustrations with previous nationalist groupings such as the National Democratic Party (NDP), established in January 1960, which pushed for a constitutional conference, with party members demonstrated, rioted and committed acts of arson in hopes of changing the conditions in Zimbabwe, Nkomo formed the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union, or Zapu, just after the NDP was banned. [35] As for the actions of the NDP, as Mugabe put it many years later, some of those in the organization were some of the first to use petrol bombs in 1960 as a “means of pressure, not really to destroy life” and that there were strikes and demonstrations in 1961. [36]

Zapu named Nkomo as President, Tichafa Samuel Parirenyatwa as vice-president, Ndabaningi Sithole as chairman, Jason Moyo as information secretary, and Mugabe as publicity secretary. The organization embarked on pushing the failed policies of the NDP, with Nkomo banned from coming into Zimbabwe under legalistic jargon from the colonialist state. [37] Furthermore, Nkomo wanted to encourage the British government to agree to nationalist demands, and the organization boycotted the settler elections in Dec. 1962, with Nkomo declaring that that Zapu must “continue in any form desired by the people at a given time, and under different circumstances. But I must repeat, that we shall never, I repeat never, form any new Party.” [38] In order to back up these claims, Zapu and related freedom fighters engaged in civil disobedience, arson, sabotage, and demonstrations against the White minority government, which they refused to talk with, rightly so. [30] Nkomo was imprisoned and official Black opposition banned in 1962 by the white colonialist government. The Soviets played a major helping hand in this liberation struggle, giving massive support for Zapu, which made its first contact with them through the ANC in South Africa, with the Soviets continuing their opposition to the settler government in Zimbabwe at major international forums time and time again, with Nkomo and other top leaders went on troops worldwide in an effort to garner international support. [40]

In 1963, the equation changed. The “more radical elements” of the anti-colonial Zimbabwe opposition, who were mostly in prison, broke away from Zapu to form Zanu, the Zimbabwe African National Union. [41] This new grouping, which had come about due to anger against Nkomo by those who accused him of allowing the White settlers to unite and different strategy, was led by Sithole. It believed in immediate armed confrontation with the White settlers and self-reliance while Zapu wanted intervention from the international arena. [42] Broadly speaking, Zapu was aligned with the Ndebele and Zanu was aligned with the Shona. Additionally, those in Zanu, including Mugabe of course, were progressive nationalists who wanted immediate action, while Zapu represented the more conservative nationalists, seeming to only engage in slow maneuvers. [43] Predictably, the Zapu denounced Zanu as dividing the movement. At a “people’s conference,” supposedly to solve problems within the Zimbabwe liberation movement, attendees resolved that Nkomo was the only leader of the anti-colonial liberation movement in Zimbabwe, that bans on African nationalist organizations. throughout Africa must be denounced, that “divisive tendencies” must combated, and vigilance against the settler regime continued. [44] Additionally, the conference declared that “active resistance” against the settler regime would continue, rejected cooperation with the British, and expelled the “four conspirators” which formed Zapu (Sithole, Mugabe, Washington Malianga, and Leopard Takawira). [45] The attendees declared that these individuals were “dividing” the Zimbabwean people through forming their own party, seeing it as an imperialist divide-and-control policy. [45]

Due to these differences, the conflict between Zapu and Zanu erupted. At times it became violent. While some may be included to do so, it is wrong to discount the Zanu group wholesale. For one, Mugabe, a top leader in the group, spent 11 months in detention which hurt his son psychologically, who later died from malaria. [46] Years later, he summarized, in part, the beliefs of Zanu, by saying that “you cannot fight for grievances by pleading…you can only do so by getting to the root cause of the problem and that’s the problem of power.” [47] As for Zapu, it suffered from the justified defection of members to Zanu. A number of the key figures of Zanu’s armed wing had played a role in leading Zapu’s armed wing, taking with them “operational information and many individual cadré.” This altered the “balance of power in the liberation movement,” leaving Zapu with the short end of the stick, something from which it would not recover from in the years to come. While the idea of reconciliation between the two “wings” of the liberation movement was proposed, it was quickly abandoned within the country as untenable. [48] The same year, the Central African Federation dissolved and military power was handed over to Winston Field, leading to continued oppression.

As the liberation movement in Zimbabwe split, so did the funding. Zapu representatives went to a number of socialist countries, still supported by the Soviets, and based in Zambia with the military wing of ZIPRA (Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army). [49] As for Zanu and their military wing, the Zimbabwean African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), they received much of their support from Maoist China. The latter socialist state promoted the idea of guerrilla warfare as a way to win the liberation war. Simply put, Zanu, later led by Mugabe, had a pro-China leaning while Zapu, led by Nkomo, had a pro-Soviet leaning. Black leaders in nations such as Mozambique, Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, and Angola, supported the guerillas with training areas and pitched camps, while the White settler government in Zimbabwe formed “a well trained, moderately equipped, and integrated armed force.” Ultimately, the split between Zapu and Zanu never healed, manifesting itself in problems which continue in Zimbabwe to this day. Arguably, Zapu, also supported by Cuba, the short-lived United Arab Republic (U.A.R.), and the German Democratic Republic (GDR or “East Germany”), followed Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin’s teachings while Zanu, with their varying external networks, followed the teachings of Mao Zedong. [50] This meant that Zanu worked to mobilize the rural peasantry, Zapu worked to mobilize the urban proletariat.

This manifestation of the Sino-Soviet split, begun in part by Nikita Khrushchev’s traitorous “Secret Speech” denouncing the supposed “wrongs” of Joseph Stalin, meant that China determined more of the direction of the Zimbabwe liberation struggle than the Soviets. Beijing’s association with Zimbabwe goes back to the liberation struggle, a time when Zanu cadres went to China to get guerrilla training and attended classes in Ghana taught by Chinese instructors. [51] As a result of Chinese support, Zanu was transformed from a splinter organization into a full-fledged participant of the liberation struggle, and it became more bold, criticizing the alliance of the Soviet-aligned ANC and Zapu, saying this allowed racists to consolidate their forces. [52] In later years, Zanu revamped its strategy to be more Maoist, with armed struggle based in “support of the people,” by the early 1970s, as Mugabe said years later. As a result of the guerrilla warfare tactics by Zanu and traditional military tactics by Zapu, along with  with Zanu freedom fighters trained by the Vietcong and Chinese in guerrilla tactics, with the fighters returning from the latter country coming back radicalized, the White settler government adjusted their system of racist terror. [53] China, for their part, was active in aiding liberation in the country, seeing as a way to counter “Soviet hegemonism” and “Sovietism” with their support as part of their anti-superpower and anti-Soviet agenda. Hilariously, this was misread by the White apartheid government as a way to get Western capitalists and China to work together and fight the Soviets, but the Chinese would have no part in such an “agreement.”

The Zimbabwean liberation movement was up against a formidable adversary. Between 1960 and 1963, the White settler government had received four transport aircraft, 12 fighter aircraft, and 30 armored fighting vehicles, called Ferret armoured cars, from London, along with three light helicopters from France. [54] The colonial organization in 1965, in Zimbabwe, was changed. In 1964, a White minority government, called UDI (Universal Declaration of Independence), was illegally created by Ian Smith, imposing apartheid rule and invalidating the phony 1961 constitution. [55] But the British “lacked the [political] will to put down this constitutional treason,” even as they had the will to disarm those that opposed the new government, so the UN instituted sanctions and gave sympathy to the liberation movement, setting the stage for guerrilla warfare in years following. During the period, Smith’s government received 10 light aircraft and 20 towed guns from Italy, along with one transport aircraft from the United States and 12 armored cars from apartheid South Africa. [56]

Still, the Zimbabwean revolutionaries did not give up. As resistance against the settler government continued to grow, and the Rhodesian Front whipped up White nationalist sentiment, Zimbabweans argued that “freedom can only be achieved by confrontation and determination.” [57] The Soviets still backed the moderate Nkomo over Mugabe, who was more radical and Marxist. This was partially due to Mugabe’s call to run his own organization while Nkomo was willing to rely on aid from the Cubans and Soviets. The Soviets also felt this aid was important since they saw China’s aid in this struggle as “hostile” even if that meant supporting someone less radical. It is also worth pointing out that that despite Cuba’s support for Zapu broadly, they did help the military wing of Zanu, which also received military training in Mozambique. This shows yet again that Cuba is not some “Soviet satellite,” as ignorant bourgeois commentators will bark.

While one could argue that Zapu was more internationalist since they sought assistance from Ghana, Egypt, the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organisation (AAPSO), GDR (“East Germany”), and Eastern European nations within the Warsaw Pact, which interestingly gave Fidel Castro more of a role as a “benefactor of third world liberation,” allowing them to be better trained and equipped than the Zanu’s military wing, Zanu connected with exiled Black nationalist Robert F. Williams. [58] They asked Williams to send copies of his publication, The Crusader, in exchange for copies of their paper, the Zimbabwe News. It is worth pointing out that despite charges that Zanu was some US-backed organ because of their reported skepticism of “accepted” liberation organizations in Southern Africa, the publication criticized Moscow, said that the Soviets were collaborating with US imperialism, criticized ANC for being pacifist, took a Black Power stand, promoted those such as H. Rap Brown, and frequently cited Mao Zedong, along with pronouncements of African socialism. [59] Hence, the Zapu claim that Zanu was US-sponsored falls flat and is almost a joke. Such a claim is also further invalidated by the fact that Zapu’s strategy to discredit Zanu leaders was “based on personal accounts and accusations” in papers such as the Daily News, which effectively served as a pro-Zapu and anti-Zanu outlet. [60]

Despite their differences, there is no doubt that Zapu and Zanu had a tough fight. For Zanu, they engaged in armed struggle, first tested in April 1966 in Sinoia, in an engagement that proved “tactically manageable” but shook the “Rhodesian White community.” [61] Such events, followed by freedom fighters of Zanu and Zapu going off to socialist countries to train, coming back “to intensify the armed struggle,” were downplayed by the information department of the UDI, who claims that all was well in the country, with news of battles suppressed in their totality. The same was the case for those guerrillas in the Zapu-ANC alliance, which engaged in a rough, bloody battle in August 1967, which resulted in heavily censored news inside of the country. [62] Zanu, pointed this out the same year, arguing that the illegal White government in Zimbabwe was trying to stoke ethnic discord by stressing “ancient wars among Africans” in radio and news commentaries, along with in schools, saying that the government was circulating letters that purport to be from the GDR (“East Germany”) as a way of stirring up mischief. [63] As for the tactics used by Zapu, some argued they had no significant impact, an assessment which resulted in a new strategy formulated, with a plan to send a joint military force across the Zambezi River into northwest Zimbabwe. This was done with the realization of the nature of their enemy as “British imperialism assisted by NATO” while understanding “the savagery role of the Washington government,” vowing the fight until the end. [64]

Internationally, Zapu and Zanu played differently. Zanu members were critical of Stokely Carmichael (later Kwame Ture) leading SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), arguing that Carmichael was partnering with Zapu and ANC, which was only partially true since in his autobiography, he says that he supported the Pan-African Congress more than other organizations, seeing it as mature, principled, and young, a bit like SNCC. [65] Still, it worth noting that this “alliance of convenience” between the ANC and Zapu may have seemed sound by many but also could be arguably “narrow and selfish” with a wider alliance of nationalist parties in the region perhaps a better strategy. [66] In Algiers, the location of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Eldridge of the Black Panthers met with Charles Chikarema of Zapu who introduced him to an Elaine Klein, an American woman who worked with the Ministry of Information in Algeria, who let Eldridge be officially invited to the country along with a Black Panther Party delegation, removing his dependency on Cuba as a place of exile. [67] Due to this development, and the fact that Sithole of Zanu appeared in court, at one point, saying that he publicly wanted to disassociate himself from “any subversive activities” and from any “form of violence,” it is likely that the Black Panther coalition and support group in Zimbabwe was pro-Zapu. [68] However, one cannot be completely sure about this since Zanu was much more Black nationalist. The latter was clear when the Zimbabwe News declared that “Christianity has been used as a subtle instrument to destroy Zimbabwe culture” which some was a statement that went “too far.” [69]

By 1969, the situation in Zimbabwe was worsening. With financial interests in White-ruled Africa, Africans continued to be oppressed by about two hundred British firms in companies led by a small “White group of capitalists,” while 86% of Zimbabweans worked (and lived) in rural areas on European farms or subsisting as cash-crop farmers. [70] Additionally, education was not free (or compulsory), Whites earned much more than Black Africans by far, and no African nationalist organization could hold weight, with the masses angry about the system of the whole, not just the UDI government. [71] It was clear that the British government would not “stand idle while a truly people’s socialist revolution is on the verge of reality in Zimbabwe” with British intervention in the country either to save their “kin” or to put in place a “neo-colonialist puppet regime.” [72] While this did not happen by 1970, the UDI elites consolidated their control. At that time, they had a strong military force, consisting of 3,400 regular troops, 6,400 police troopers, 28,500 reserve police, two infantry battalions, 1,200 Air Force personnel, 4,000 Air Force personnel in reserve, and one field artillery piece. [73] They also had advanced airplanes, helicopters, and other machinery, many from Western capitalist states, along with an alliance with South Africa. This included, in part, South African troops in Zimbabwe, aided by Britain and US military personnel, along with fascist organizations across the Western capitalist world supporting the horrid White settler government. [74]

There were a number of continuities throughout the 1960s in the Zimbabwean liberation struggle. For one, Zimbabwean women subverted traditional gender roles by fighting as freedom fighters, sometimes in fatigues, along with providing troops with food and clothing, and they later earned praise for their valuable “contributions to the revolution.” [75] This was likely the case in Zanu and Zapu. There is no doubt that the violence of the apartheid government in Zimbabwe led to armed resistance among the liberation movement, along with Nkomo to be imprisoned in a concentration camp, one of the ways the government tried to keep the populace under control, from 1964 to 1970, along with killing of many comrades in the process. [76] It is worth noting that Mugabe was also imprisoned from December 1963 until November 1974, but was still part of the liberation struggle. The bloody battle for liberation in Zimbabwe, between the White settler-rulers and “black guerrilla movements” through the 1960s and until the late 1970s, as even the US State Department acknowledged, was part of something bigger. There were liberation groups and revolutionaries across East Africa ranging from The Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMO), the Southwest African People’s Organization (SWAPO), ANC, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), Zanu, and Zapu, all of which “utilized Tanzanian training camps” so they could “prepare and plan anticolonial wars” against White settler governments in the region. [77] Such developments interested Black nationalist Robert F. Williams greatly, not surprisingly. As John Nkomo of the Zapu grouping, said years later, they worked closely with Nordic countries, such as Sweden, the latter which cooperated with Zanu and Zapu, allowing them to bring equipment back to Zimbabwe, with some equipment later donated to Zambia since they had “sacrificed so much.”

Notes

[1] Such stories have been published in the Zimbabwe Independent, News24, International Business Times UK, New Zimbabwe, The Zimbabwe Mail, NewsDay, ZimEye, and The Zimbabwe Daily, among many others.

[2] Immanuel Wallerstein, Africa: The Politics of Independence: An Interpretation of Modern African History (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), 22.

[3] Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1982), 65.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Wallerstein, 22.

[6] Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 65.

[7] Ibid, 64.

[8] Immanuel Wallerstein, Africa: The Politics of Independence: An Interpretation of Modern African History (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), 23; Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1982), 48.

[9] Wallerstein, 23; Rodney, 66.

[10] Rodney, 66.

[11] Rodney, 66-67.

[12] Rodney, 64, 67.

[13] Wallerstein, 23.

[14] Rodney, 134.

[15] Rodney, 67-68.

[16] Wallerstein, 23.

[17] Rodney, 65.

[18] Ibid, 165, 233.

[19] Ibid, 163.

[20] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle (ed. Zimbabwe African People’s Union (Zapu), Cairo: Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization, 1972, second edition), 14.

[21] “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary. Sadly, the original name of this documentary or its British announcer, clearly a journalist at the time, is not known. On the webpage for the film, a horrid anti-Mugabe book is linked, a book by a French academic who wants to think “beyond” the Zanu-PF.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 14-15.

[24] Ibid, 15.

[25] Ibid, 15-16.

[26] Ibid, 16-17.

[27] Ibid, 17-19.

[28] Ibid, 20-21.

[29] This information comes from the SIPRI trade register.

[30] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 19.

[31] Ibid, 20-21; Chenhamo Chimutengwende, “Zimbabwe and White-Ruled Africa,” The New Revolutionaries: A Handbook of the International Radical Left (ed. Tariq Ali, New York: William Morrow & Company, 1969), 241.

[32] Ian Taylor, China and Africa: Engagement and Compromise (New York: Routledge, 2006), 107-108.

[33] “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary.

[34] Chimutengwende, 241-242.

[35] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 22-23.

[36] “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary. Mugabe also said that his wife at the time, Sally Mugabe, participated in a women’s demonstration in 1961.

[37] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 24-25.

[38] Ibid, 25.

[39] Ibid, 26-29; “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary.

[40] Gerald Horne, From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 351; Alex Thomson, An Introduction to African Politics, p. 144. There is also an academic article by Dumiso Dabengwa titled “Relations between ZAPU and the USSR, 1960s–1970s: A Personal View” which may shed light on this subject.

[41] “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary.

[42] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 24-25. Part of this armed confrontation included the conviction that “physical attacks on Whites and their property were necessary.”

[43] Chimutengwende, 242.

[44] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 31-32, 33-37.

[45] Ibid, 32-37.

[46] “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary. Mugabe himself had declared in December 1962 that it was time to move to armed struggle.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 38. After this idea of reconciliation was abandoned from within the liberation movement, it became an “external, non-Zimbabwe wish, not worth pursuing” as Zapu argued in this publication.

[49] It is also worth pointing out that China funded the Pan-African Congress while the Soviets supported the African National Congress in South Africa.

[50] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 21-22, 40; Timothy Scarnecchia, The Urban Roots of Democracy and Political Violence in Zimbabwe: Harare and Highfield, 1940-1964 (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2008), 141, 146, 161. Despite the futility of the Zanu-Zapu power struggle, reportedly the split between Zanu and Zapu was a “class divide” with Zanu supporters including college students (and peasants) and Zapu supporters being the “old guard.” Also, reportedly, Zapu was better in urban settings than Zanu.

[51] Taylor, China and Africa, 106-108. In earlier years, the Chinese trained and sent armed to Zapu, but this changed after the Sino-Soviet split came into full force in the later 1960s.

[52] Ibid, 108-109.

[53] Ibid, 107-110, 113.

[54] This information comes from the SIPRI trade register.

[55] Ibid; Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 47-49; “The Lion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe,” Internet Archive, 1979 British documentary. Also, top British colonial personnel continued talks with the regime, allowing it to stand under legal fictions, and putting in the farce of sanctions, reinforcing their “colonial responsibility” in Rhodesia.

[56] This information comes from the SIPRI trade register.

[57] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 40-41; Timothy Scarnecchia, The Urban Roots of Democracy and Political Violence in Zimbabwe, 148. Comes from a letter in 1964 from Zimbabwean mothers.

[58] Robeson Taj Frazier, “A Revolution is Not a Dinner Party: Black Internationalism, Chinese Communism and the Post World War II Black Freedom Struggle, 1949-1976,” Spring 2009, Dissertation for University of California, Berkeley, p. 179. Zapu guerrillas also reportedly received training in Algeria, Bulgaria, North Korea, and the Congo region. Also, one Zapu guerrilla told a Zimbabwean court in 1968 that in the Soviet Union, guerrillas had classes lasting four months on a wide range of topics including “political science, aspects of intelligence work…use of codes and ciphers.” and given a rundown on work of “the CIA, MI6 and MI5, and the French and Federal German intelligence organisations” along with being taught how to use “explosives, hand-grenades, and how to use and assemble guns, rifles and pistols.”

[59] Gerald Horne, From the Barrel of a Gun, 247, 258. Horne, who obviously thinks more highly of Zapu than Zanu, claims that the US was more skeptical of Zapu than Zanu because Zapu was friendlier to Eastern European socialist nations, claims that Zanu boosted “marginal forces with suspicious origins” like COREMO (Mozambique Revolutionary Committee), and that Nkomo dealt with African Americans more diplomatically than Zanu. These claims should be treated very skeptically

[60] Timothy Scarnecchia, The Urban Roots of Democracy and Political Violence in Zimbabwe, 141.

[61] Chimutengwende, 245-246.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Gerald Horne, From the Barrel of a Gun, 255.

[64] Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 60-65.

[65] Robeson Taj Frazier, “A Revolution is Not a Dinner Party,” p. 153, 182.

[66] Chimutengwende, 244. It is worth noting that both the ANC and Zapu groups had a “fairly formal structure with a commander and a political commissar,” with both “dressed in semi-military uniforms” from 1966 to 1968, at least.

[67] Gaidi Faraj, “Unearthing the Underground: A study of radical activism in the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army,” Fall 2007, Dissertation for the University of California, Berkeley, p. 197.

[68] Maxwell C. Standford, Jr., “We Will Return in the Whirlwind: Black Radical Organizations 1960-1975,” January 3, 2003, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 277-278; Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 39-40.

[69] Thomas Turino, “Race, Class, and Musical Nationalism in Zimbabwe,” Music and the Racial Imagination (ed. Ronald M. Radano, Philip V. Bohlman, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 572.

[70] Chimutengwende, 238-239, 248.

[71] Ibid, 239-240, 248.

[73] Ibid, 250. Examples cited include those of Sekou Toure or Albert Karume.

[74] Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 50-51.

[75] Ibid, 52-55.

[76] Linda Lumsden, “Good Mothers with Guns: Framing Black Womanhood in the Black Panther, 1968-1980,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 86, No. 4, Winter 2009, p. 908, 919; Taylor, China and Africa, 107-108; Timothy Scarnecchia, The Urban Roots of Democracy and Political Violence in Zimbabwe, 146; Zimbabwe: A History of Struggle, 42, 44-46, 66. In a 1976 article, The Panther extolled the “egalitarian, gun-toting example of women revolutionaries who fought alongside men” in Palestine and Zimbabwe.

[77] Robeson Taj Frazier, “A Revolution is Not a Dinner Party,” p. 156.

Advertisements

Reflecting on the “human rights watcher” guy

CbSib9MWEAEbJ1t

There is one troll and/or deluded person on the twitterverse called the “human rights watcher.” This post aims to point out his delusions, his connections to broader forces of the Celebrity Left, and give more of an overview.

My conversation with Garry

It all started when this Human Rights Watcher, with the abbreviation being the same as the supposed human rights organization named Human Rights Watch (HRW), with the twitter handle GarryR10 smeared a comrade. He claimed that Emma Quangel (EQ), along with RedKahina (RK), was rich and had a “fat” bank account. [1] How he would know this information is beyond me, hence what he was saying is just pure conjecture and arguably makes him a “fascist stalker” as @kazahann (Karen) tweeted in response. GarryR10 later laughably claimed that Karen would have lawyers go after him and that “you piss on Russian graves with your cultist fantasies.” Yikes. I jumped right into this conversation, being a good comrade and ally, wondering where this guy was going. After criticizing his response to Karen, I said that I didn’t know who he was working for with such wacky statements, which I still agree with but will expound on later in this article. Others rightfully poked at his response (see here and here) and said that he sounded mad.

GarryR10’s didn’t get any better. He claimed that Karen was of the “type” that the Russian people kicked “out of their government as fast as they could” and said this was “probably with good reason.” I’m still not sure what “type” of person he is thinking of or what he really isn’t talking about, but this was obviously odd and problematic to say the least. That’s not all. He claimed that he wouldn’t trust American communists again because he apparently hadn’t met “or seen a single one who was not a hoarder themselves & millions starve.” [2] This wacky statement sounds almost like a statement out of anti-communist propaganda and is more like what actions a capitalist would take. I guess that coincidence isn’t a surprise since he claimed that EQ would not be harmed by the doxing, which is utterly preposterous. [3]

This is only the tip of the iceberg. He almost creepily claimed that those who criticize Crabapple don’t donate to causes, and that such critics seem “like a clique based in NYC, pretending to be a “communist party”” and “obsess” over Molly Crabapple (MC), a statement to which he provided no evidence at all. [4] Clearly this indicated that she, MC, should be left alone to which he responded by claiming that critics of Crabapple started the feud “with Crabapple & Vice, after they gave you an opportunity to debate them fully” (he later claimed that this was fracturing the Left too) Before going on, I can say this is utterly false and is arguably historical revisionism. In the first iteration of my account, which I then called CrabappleWatch, I had planned to response to Crabapple as an informed critic and to learn what all the hullabaloo was about. After literally five tweets I was blocked by Crabapple. If she had really wanted to give “an opportunity” to debate her, then she wouldn’t have blocked me. That was not the case. As will be shown later, doxxing of critics has become the accepted method to “discredit” critics in the minds of Crabapple and co. All this is no surprise since Garry admitted, at one point, he would work for VICE even as he said that MC had her “own misguided view,” which is very telling.

I started to challenge Garry even more directly. I called him out on his supposed “exposure” of what he claimed was a “dumb clique,” saying point blank: “Dumb clique. What’s your problem?” His reason for saying this was that he apparently wanted people who criticize MC to “apologize and be better for it” even as he admitted that “I liked some of their points” but thought that “they hoard IMO.” In the same breath he called out MC critics, well-meaning comrades some whom he accused of having “fat bank accounts,” for supposedly not donating and saying that they should do research on “the best charities and funds.” Is he a walking advertisement for a humanitarian org. or philanthropy or what? Just wacky stuff. Of course, I responded by saying that “donation isn’t everything” and that he was being kooky (or acting like a spy).

Garry’s other tweets make him seem even more out there. He said that in “certain times of crisis or despair” the desires or  prudence for martial law was understandable, seemingly implying that he would support martial law under those circumstances. This tweet, which disturbed me, was followed by others such as one saying that he wasn’t communist because “images of Stalinist paranoia or torture” are apparently accepted. I really don’t know where he gets his information. But it almost sounds like the Black Book of Communism. Then he started to get really wacky. He claimed that people were neglecting their ethical duties by not giving aid (which is his big answer to poverty) and claimed the American people were responsible. His exact quotes were that the people of the United States are “accessories & beneficiaries of untold mass murder of the most vulnerable” and if they are shown the facts, “we can avoid further suffering while fully giving aid to the most vulnerable and innocent, desperate for education & opportunity.

I responded to Garry by saying that his statements were not a good start for activism and later said that this approach will make it hard to gain followers.He responded by saying that the “posts about EQ and MC” were apparently “a commentary in a way on American and Western leftist activism” and that their ethics are “typical.” Hmm, who would have thought that from someone who claimed that NO ONE in the United States cares about global starvation, meaning that people who are starving in this country don’t care about their own starvation, and that their ethics should be questioned. Still, he apparently cares about the one million Iraqis that died from the US invasion as this tweet seems to evidence but also supports the actions of Snowden which positions himself in a certain camp with certain types of people (Greenwald and co for example). This isn’t a surprise since he claims that MC and others have done “positive” work. What.

Then the tweets back and forth began. They started with Garry’s response to a tweet from humanitarian interventionist and current US representative to the UN, Samantha Power, a tweet which he claimed was “strange.” I commented on his tweet calling Power an imperialist snake. But it was not this that set off the conversation. [5] Instead it was a set of tweets in which he claimed: (1) stereotype of “Ugly American” is ignored, (2) he was skeptical of “global Wests,” and that millions of people apparently turn away UNICEF donations. I argued that UNICEF was only one organization of many, to which he barked back “Is this your excuse for a debate? I’m right here but it’s like you’re talking over my head” and that UNICEF is only one example. He apparently cares so much about global starvation that he said that Ken Roth had spooky posts and that the US didn’t have “moral fibre” on starvation. Uh huh. He later almost implied that we should be more critical of each other than the economic system with greed seemingly as an “incorrect” side effect instead of one that was intended. [6] Beyond this, he took a stand against factory farming, and is apparently a vegetarian, but in the grand scheme he barely talks about it. [7]

The true back and forth only started in earnest later on. He responded to my earlier tweets first and foremost. He claimed the EQ was Canadian (without evidence), didn’t donate anything, and implied she was a hoarder once again. In response to his “excuse for a debate” tweet I said that I was only trying to say that UNICEF was only one organization (and imply that he hadn’t mentioned any others). Also, in response to one tweet, I said that those living on $2 a day are not hoarders as it seemed he was implying, when I actually think in hindsight he was claiming that EQ was a hoarder again. Garry went even further and said that EQ didn’t donate an “ethical amount” to which I responded was basically irrelevant to her politics. In response to my tweet he went into wacko land and claimed three things: (1) in time some will recognize “the dire situation” of global starvation, (2) people in the West are greedy, and (3) that he has to get on a “base ethical level” when debating with “Wests,” including people like me. To (3) I responded by saying that he is wrong to think that “Wests” are dumb, arguing “some are but some aren’t.” I also responded to (3) by saying that I didn’t understand what he meant by “ethical level.” He responded to this by claiming that “USAs have shallow, bad ethics, thus, starvation” (I later said that this was too much of a generalization) and that by ethical level he meant “confronting the basic beliefs of what is right & wrong, & how a person should behave morally.” As for (2), I responded by saying the following: “there are people starving in the West too. Hence I wouldn’t say everyone in the West is greedy but some are.”

This is only the start. In another response to (2) I argued that the malnutrition in the world is a result of the capitalism, with him backing away from the word capitalism! I responded by saying that the word should still be used. Still he is a person who claims he he is neutral on abortion but agrees with the pro-choice side. Hence, he is NOT neutral on abortion. [8] Anyway, he is also the same person who claimed Samantha Power killed more in Africa than Hitler and is “dumb like [the] Nazis.” Those tweets, almost for shock value as I can see in retrospect, led to a long series of tweets. I responded by asking why she is the only one to blame in his mind. He responded by saying that she should resign because of global starvation. I responded to this by saying that she is a person who pushes humanitarian imperialism. In response to this, Garry argues that the US embassy may write her tweets and that she is reading from a script. He went even further and almost defended her despite he claim she is “or became a horrific mass murderer in my view,” claiming “she is actually in control of a huge embassy, plus shes twitter lonely” despite the fact she is clearly part of the foreign policy establishment. Instead of accepting this claim, he sidetracked, called her a useful tool of neocons and the US military (see here, here, and here), and had this strange tweet. He even thought that those who called the GOPers who signed the letter against the Iran deal “traitors” was irony when it really wasn’t. Later he said that the GOP was incompetent to which I reminded him the Dems were incompetent too. As the conversation chain came to an end he claimed he couldn’t debate with me anymore because I didn’t subscribe to his view that NO people in the US could be trusted on their ethics, calling them “ethnically hazardous.” In response I argued that: (1)”I don’t think Americans overall are “ethically hazardous.” I think like any people there are good, deep-seated values”; (2) “I’m aware that there’s a lot of fucked up stuff in America from a war machine, police killings, sexual violence, & so on”; (3) “I still have faith in Americans or Usians sure. Not sure what “America” constitutes anymore.” The last point was an opening to further conversation which he never explored. But his responses were clues for what was to come.

In a short conversation Garry claimed it was Power’s job to be on top of global starvation. In response I argued that “I don’t think a representative of an imperialist state would magically become more principled.” He fired back by saying it happened with Iraq but not now forgetting that that was a specific circumstance unlike what he describing. Before going on, I think it important to recognize that he seems to be emotionally/mentally unstable as these two tweets (see here and here) seem to indicate. Perhaps that is related, or not, to him calling a wacko Freemasonry video “excellent” despite his criticisms. He also started to get full of himself, liking his own tweets (also noted here and here) which is just bizarre. He even claimed that me calling her part of the foreign policy establishment was unfounded and that she resigned even though this was not the case, as I noted at the time. Then he kinda mocked me and my belief about Power with my response as follows: “Um, you can’t magically think you know what I believe.” Clearly the tension was being raised. He even claimed that Power was a “clownish millionaire” instead of an “imperialist mouthpiece” as I argued. In response to his argument that I hadn’t been engaging in a reasonable debate, I noted that I hadn’t called him any names and he claimed he was just talking about people of the United States as a whole instead, a view I still disagree with.

Herein starts a new thread. In a tweet I was responding to, likely when he said that the people of the United States didn’t care about starvation, I argued that such people support public assistance to the poor, and in response he cited FAO stats. I shot back saying that deaths from malnutrition are the result of capitalism and that giving money to a charity isn’t going to make them disappear (see here and here). He then tried to tell me what ethics was and claimed I was being snobbish when I questioned this. I responded by saying that the US capitalists had the real money, not the populace (see here, here, here, and here). He then cited the amount of US GDP despite the problematic nature of this measure along with claiming the median income was $53,000 which I later learned was wrong according to BLS stats (see here and here. He used this to argue that every person should give $1,000 to which I said would not solve the fundamental problems that cause malnutrition and incur other costs (see here and here). He then cited this NY Times piece once again saying that it would cost $30 billion to end the world food crisis, to which I said he should be pushing the US government to do it rather than the populace, a suggestion he roundly rejected, almost mocking me. He then went even further, making it seem that because people were not giving aid the way HE wanted they were committing genocide (a conspiracy) to which I said the capitalists are responsible, and he said it was “shameful” that I did not feel responsible. [9] I responded with a classic Sarah McLachlan commercial just to show his level of understanding.

Garry said things that were even more wacko. He claimed I had “grand plans” for starving people in the world without evidence and that the USA people don’t care. I countered this by saying that they do care, along with noting UNICEF funding, the former which he characterized as “rationalizing” their actions. It was in this tweet he claimed that I should face starvation so I can “learn” about it: “Disturbing how you try to rationalize their actions. I hope you have to face starvation, so you can learn how bad it is.” [10] What sick individual would wish that for someone? Gosh, what the heck is wrong with him? I later called him out on this, even saying that I was NOT rationalizing the actions of the US populace, and he claimed that he had little “faith that you will ever take or feel responsibility.” He went even further and said wackily that, and I quote, “You don’t care about the people starving now. It’s like bathing a cat simply trying to get you to admit that it happens.” Yikes. What in the world. As for characterizing me a snob, I can’t laugh enough at that and say that by his own standards his own ethics can be questioned (see here and here). When he went down his wacko way, I asked for help from my fellow comrades who helpfully gave me support. Garry continued on saying that there was an “epic situation” of global starvation, that I should blame myself for it and more. I responded by saying again that the capitalist system was more to blame, which he rejected and later called be partially delusional which implies that I should blame myself which I refuse to do. He later said that it is harsh to call me delusional but that “it’s about the life or torturous death of 9 million people every year.” Finally, after I blocked him he declared “not surprised to be blocked by yet ANOTHER person with an antagonistic hate-crush on Molly Crabapple. Sigh… Lol” despite the fact that I have been blocked by Crabapple since DAY ONE of my account and don’t have a “hate crush” but rather believe she should be criticized. Also what’s ridiculous is that the conversation was barely if at all all about Crabapple and he still tried to smear me with it. It’s just absurd.

Later, I said that the whole incident was like this Simpsons clip (along with this one and this one). After I soft-blocked him, I decided to fully block him for good after his wacky tweets, along with joking about it. For those like @africommunist who said Garry should fuck off, they are totally right. And here’s some tweets I found which I thought would close the chapter on Garry the “human rights watcher.” But I was wrong.

Garry entering the world of doxxing

In the past, Garry has shown he was willing to unite with twitterers who favored MC (Molly Crabapple), almost forming a pro-MC front of sorts. Examples include responding directly to MC and to Chuckles of course. [12] He even allied with a Crabapple backer who worked in distributing US imperial propaganda in the past as noted in tweets here and here. In recent days he has said he wanted to smear EQ with something other than words, said he was being slandered, and stalked the TL of @rancidsassy (RS). Lest us remember that Garry is kinda obsessing over EQ, which is interesting since he accuses people of obsessing over MC, falsely claims that she is threatening journalists and calling her a murderer. Jeez. Perhaps all of this is related to his depression, which is as RS notes, a sad story but it doesn’t forgive his actions. Hard to know. At the same time, he find Melanie Trump attractive for some reason, and has a long series of tweets which are bit creepy in which he says he wants to marry an immigrant or non-US citizen, with a focus on a Russian girl, and this messed up tweet. Then he claimed that RS was lead-poisoned, which implies, as noted by his earlier tweet, that RS and critics of MC are just totally brainless beyond belief.

Recently he took another step. He began sharing private information with Chuckles, MC and others. In help with a user named @OzKaterji, he doxxed people who chose to stay anonymous. For Garry, he is ON RECORD as doxxing RK. If you can, report him for this. As for his friend, @OzKaterji, he claims to be a “real” journalist, mad at MC critics for pictures such as this one, and supports the actions of FEMEN (see here and here). [11] At one pint, even when RS was trying to be supportive Garry seemingly threatened RS with doxxing, declaring: “You are a really sad person to me. You can’t hide behind a computer screen any longer. Get used to it.” Clearly since I blocked him, the “desperate idiot,” he has become more wacko, so I regret nothing about that blocking since he can’t bother me anymore. Since I don’t want to perpetrate the dox, it is important to recognize that Oz, with the help of Garry, publicly revealed the names of five people who chose to be anonymous, three of which Oz called “anonymous twitter trolls” as the tweet, which I recently posted, shows:

 

 

 

 

A conclusion

I could continue on with this article but I think it is important to bring it to an honest conclusion. As we all know, this doxing/doxxing business, at least in recent memory, started with Crabapple outing EQ for purely political reasons, saying that she worked for a UN agency and was supposedly doing something heinous when she really was not. A good question to ask, as I did on twitter is who Garry, the “human rights watcher and his snievly friends, in concert with Crabapple and co., will dox next.” Its hard to know. But what is clear is that the pro-Crabapple forces, which may even be a limited characterization, are engaging in actions that reinforce the imperial status quo. Whether Garry and his friend Oz like it or not, they are reinforcing the aims of the murderous US empire. Likely they don’t care much that this is the case or are naive enough to think they are not reinforcing these objectives by giving fodder to the propaganda machine. Never once have these forces tried to dox bigots or racists, instead they dox those who criticize them and reside on the radical left. That is totally unacceptable. It is an open question in my mind if any form of doxxing is acceptable such as against racists and bigots, and if not, then there should be a strong stance against doxxing across the board no matter who it is. As those critical of the Celebrity Left which includes Glenn Greenwald, Deray, Molly Crabapple, and numerous others, there should be no backing down from criticism but instead there should be movement forward. Efforts by the Celebrity Left to reinforce the status quo with faux criticism should be opposed at all costs but this should not include using the same tactics used against comrades such as myself. That would be hypocrisy of the highest degree and would just give more ammunition to the forces in favor of the Celebrity Left. In the end, those on the critical and/or sensible left as some have called it, should oppose doxing, revealing it to show their true tactics, and to serve as a place of criticism and radical thought not available elsewhere. I look forward to your comments.


Notes

[1] In one tweet I found he condemned EQ claiming that “her job is puffy by global standards” and without evidence said “didn’t see her donating her large salary either.” He also said that “I don’t get it, Em didn’t even respond to the attack, scared for her puffy job likely.” Really starting to think he is a spy or something.

[2] Elsewhere he said the following in a tweet of his own that he favorited: “Mind you, I have never been a communist, but have felt they had some good arguments & materials, and also interesting reads on Twitter.” Also see these tweets related to this: here, here, and here. He also said in a statement that throws radical theory out the window the following: “Western communists should likely fall into this, not worthy of respect, but I don’t have as much experience. 99% hoarders & typical selfish.” Jeez, where does he get his information?

[3] In one tweet I found he said the following: “You’re right. I don’t feel huge sympathy for Emma though, no bad will happen to her.” What a heartless asshole who doesn’t feel anything for commies.

[4] He also used the term “clique” elsewhere to describe people who work at water utility companies who are apparently corrupt (see here and here). So I’m not sure if he even knows how he is using the term.

[5] Even my response to a tweet in which Garry claimed that people in the United States are “the most ethnocentric and self-centered people I’ve ever met, & I’ve met many. I’m hesitant of embracing any of them” did not trigger a response from him. Neither did my response to his comment about the US’s mass media market or my question to his strange tweet about a magical database he had heard of.

[6] In a classic Garryism he demanded that people who care about global starvation have a job “to be at the front of the debate-line to demand the 9 million get aid” with the number 9 million coming from the UN’s FAO apparently. That for one isn’t a democratic notion and it ignores WHO will get the aid. In another classic Garryism, he tweets that “it’s somewhat scary to me seeing Germany having a nationalistic government, diplomatic envoy, huge military on the rise – and a new bigotry.” How is only somewhat scary? What really scares him? This tweet really doesn’t make sense to me. Oh and lets not forget that despite the fact that Femen is a supposedly feminist organization run by an abusive man, as I noted on twitter, he supports them. Just see what he says: “I am a funny American, a part of this generation, who might hang out with Femen – but also support fairness towards Russia & minorities.” Still he took positions which seemed to take a positive view of the Syrian government (see here, here, here, and here). But this could just be posing. After all he has some strange views on the US Civil War which don’t mention black confederates. But hey, this is in his character when he, almost in a racist way, calls out “gang rapper profiteers” whatever that means. Don’t worry, he’ll tweet videos like this (also here, here, and here) which either is legit or not at all and claim that political correctness exists when it really doesn’t. Then he has strange tweets like this.

[7] This series of four tweets [here, here, here, and here] is the ONLY place he talks about this I could find.

[8] Just see this set of tweets (see here, here, here, here, and here, along with this one)  to prove this assessment. He ignores that rights to abortion and contraceptives has been under attack since the 1970s.

[9] You could argue that the US public is responsible for genocide especially of the indigenous people and the enslavement of thousands of black Africans. After all, the wealth of the United States is built on the blood, sweat and tears of Asian immigrants (especially Chinese and Japanese), enslaved blacks, indigenous people (by stealing their land), Mexican immigrants (especially after the war of 1846-8), and many others. However, what he is talking about is not genocide in the slightest.

[10] Later he favorited my response for no apparent reason.

[11] He also supports overthrow of Syria’s government, mad that his version of events isn’t being distributed by certain sources (also see here, here, and here), is part of some supposedly pro-refugee charity (also see here), is pro-intervention in Syria, and much more. He describes himself on his blog as “a writer, filmmaker, journalist, secularist and Scotch enthusiast who spends his time bouncing between London and the Middle East and binging on international politics.”

[12] I could get into the recent tweets of Chuckles but that is for another day. For that, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.