The first one revealed alot of the details and sentiment surrounding the installation of Mugabe when Zimbabwe became independent, but of the two it was Frazer's that we the most informative.
It revealed to me that Lefties like Fraser make mushy mothering emotional judgements and no amount of blood spilled will make them admit that they were wrong, and that the world is a harsher place than they imagined, necessitating a hard head.
Basically Frazer is responsible for installing Mugabe and he refuses to admit that the decision was a bad one. He seems to think that Zimbabwe would be worse off if he had installed the more moderate leader initially supported by Thatcher. Like it's even possible for Zimbabwe to be worse of that it is now.
Frazer believes Mubage's populist racsist Marxism would have proved destabilised if he was not in power. Britain (or Aus or SA) would have had to send troops in to stabilise the country. Like and good Lefty Frazer knows in his heart of hearts that sending troops to keep the peace in other countries is infinitely worse that allowing the people in that country to take up arms and massacre each other.
This is the first and by no means least of the brain-dead moral relativisms of Frazer's piece.
Frazer then condemns the former white leader of Rhodesia before it became independent Ian Smith, a famously warm and community-minded man, for refusing to allow Mugabe to visit his sick wife and child in England whilst in prison in Zimbabwe. The child died and Fraser seems to imply that it was at that point that Mugabe became a cold-blooded mass murderer.
"Whaaaah!!!!" cries Frazer. Like a housewife watching the Young and the Restless, "How could you? How could you seperate a man from his dying child, even if they were a convicted crim trying to destabilize you country. Oh the Humanity! You created the monster Mugabe. You nasty white man. You are the real evil doer."
I think what's required is a little perspective. Smith did not commit the crimes that put Mugabe in jail at the time. He did not send the kid to England to be separated from his parents and he did not make the kid sick, or kill it himself. The same cannot be said of Mugabe who is quite simply a mass murderer and turturer and one of the most barbaric human beings in (in)human history.
But wait, there's more almost-unbelievable moral blindness from Frazer. Frazer actually congratuates Mugabe. He applauds Mugabe's efforts at negotiation with Smith sometime after the death of his child. Quoting:
How many fathers could sit and talk reconciliation with such a man?Frazer implies the Mugabe has more forgiveness in him that most other Fathers. Who's Fathers do you mean Mal? My Father? Actually, Frazer, Mugabe is a complete c*&t! He did not give a shit about the death of his wife and child the same as he does not care a hoot for killing other people including women and childen. How many people does he have to kill before you will accept this??
I still can't believe Frazer wrote that. "Such a man"? "SUCH A MAN"???!!! like Smith was the monster!! It boggles the mind.
This has gone beyond moral relativism. This is the abandonment of all morality. He is not even trying to weigh up the scales of justice in any objective sense. It is madness.
This guy is a former Aussie PM. A former LIBERAL Aussie PM. He dares to say that Howard has a lack of moral sense. One cannot defend morality unless one is prepared to make judgements, hard judgments, that stick. That's diffucult in the face of a media that praises maleability but we must never fall foul of this lefty quicksand again. Once we've dipped out toe in there is no telling how low we will sink.
