G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

If the Congo does go Communist, it will not be because of Soviet strength or because the
Congolese people want Communism; it will be because of UN policy in the Congo and
because of the perverse following that induces us to support this policy with our prestige
and our money.
Senator Thomas Dodd, November 1962
CHAPTER TWO: PROLOGUE TO TRAGEDY
To fully understand this Christmas tragedy in Katanga, one must be familiar with at least a
few events and personalities that were the principal parts of the prologue. It is not
necessary to go into the rich and interesting history of Africa itself over the past two or
three centuries, although such an exercise would undoubtedly be intellectually rewarding.
Nor is it necessary to catalog the vast and varied mineral wealth of Africa and particularly
of Katanga. Let it suffice to say here that such wealth is considerable. It is undoubtedly
one of the factors which has caused behind-the-scenes manipulators from both East and
West to bring their full influence to bear on the international "front men" who have
seemingly shaped the events in Katanga. 1
In fact, we need only go back a few years in time and concentrate our attention on a rather
small number of actors in this tragic play. We can safely ignore the cast of millions and the
supporting roles of hundreds of walk-ons and bit players who have paraded across the
stage. Most of these either have been written into the play to dazzle the critics or else they
were never really part of the play at all--just a collection of stagehands and stand-ins who
were accidentally caught in the shifting spotlight.
Let us set the stage. The date is now June 30, 1960. For many months radio stations in
Red China, Communist Czechoslovakia and Romania have been beaming inflammatory
propaganda broadcasts into Africa, attempting to agitate the populations into active
support for the traditional Soviet program of anticolonialism. 2 As defined by the
Communists, this slogan means to break away all colonial holdings from non-Communist
countries like Belgium, Portugal, France, and England. The Communists, of course, are
not acting out of humanitarian instincts when they do this. Their purpose is twofold. First,
they know that breaking away these colonial holdings will unavoidably weaken the non-
Communist countries that have them and depend on them for much of their economic
viability and, to some extent, for their military national security. The second reason is that
a newly-emergent government with its inexperienced leadership is relatively easy to
infiltrate and subvert to the cause of international Communism. So, in one fell swoop the
Communists' program of anti-colonialism not only weakens their enemies but also
provides them with golden opportunities to capture still more of the earth's terrain and
population. Needless to say, the Communists are not interested in discussing the granting
of independence to their own colonial holdings, the captive nations behind the iron
curtain. 3
Be that as it may, by mid-1960 the worldwide Communist drive of "anti-colonialism" had
reached an all-time high. The Communist press in America was repeatedly instructing its
readers to whip up mass popular support for the cause. All those who questioned the
wisdom of this trend were branded "imperialists" and their comments were buried in an
avalanche of emotionalism. "Exploitation," "cruel and inhuman treatment of the natives,"