THE last part to this series defined the re-naming of Malindidzimu/Matopos as ‘World’s View’ and the burial of a British homosexual (Cecil John Rhodes) in that place as an act of seizure – an act translating to ultimate occupation.

The desecration brought with it more dehumanising freight than was immediately visible to the generality of the victims ‘entrusted’ to look after the British homosexual’s remains.

In essence, it would be the occupation of the spiritual, cultural, economic, political and historic point from which we viewed the world; an occupation of the point that determined the way in which we related with the rest of mankind; an occupation of our world view; a world view that had sustained us for centuries.

And, for purposes of this history, it is important to be agreed on what World View means.

A World View should, in this context, be understood to mean a perception or understanding of the world from a specific position – an unambiguous ‘point of view’.

And, it must be accepted that all people want to view the world from a point of vantage. 

We all want to view the world from a point of security – an observation point that commands a cosmic view and in that respect, enables an informed fortification and sustenance of interests.

Before the desecration, sacred Matopos had never been for tour. Zimbabweans had never gone there to marvel at the beauty because the beauty and sanctity of the Matopos had been, in essence, a part of themselves.  

It had been their lived experience. 

They went to the Matopos to connect with their origins. 

They went there to commune with Mwari/Murenga. 

They went there for solutions to problems of the land.

After ‘occupation’, access to our ‘point of view’ and ‘connection’ was sanctioned.  

We had to pay to gain access to the Matopos. 

And, we paid not to access the humanity of life but to tour the dehumanisation of it. 

We paid to view the symbol of extinction of human life – the symbol of decadence. 

You paid in British forex. 

Without British money we were denied access. 

The value of everything was pegged in British pounds.

The interment of the British homosexual in the sacred rock therefore inevitably interfered with spiritual signals from Murenga; a distortion that placed tourist revenue from the homosexual’s grave above our own dignity.

In the distant future, Chairman Herbert Chitepo would say: “The whole establishment of the country of Rhodesia as it is known by the white people was really as a commercial enterprise.” 

The spiritual command centre of Zimbabwe’s resistance to occupation had been occupied and every action thereafter (political, social, cultural, educational, economic) was designed to optimise the commercial enterprisethat was Rhodesia.

The most sacred space in Zimbabwe had been turned into a site of struggle – a struggle, for life, for dignity (moral), for sovereignty, for space, for independence (political, social, cultural, economic and psychological) – struggle in the sense of a fight for dominance.

The bottom line is that for us, Matopos became the biggest crime scene in the land – a ‘pay to view’ crime scene that has since been accorded World Heritage Status for reasons that lamentably include the British obscenity.

The worst harm perpetrated on us is that in the longer historical context in which we are being sanctioned to accept homosexuality as a human right, the arrangement falls into a paradigm that forces us to view the world or relate to the world from a point of view occupied by a British homosexual.

The worst harm perpetrated on us is that the place where we celebrated our heterosexual origins continues to be occupied by a homosexual even as we find no logic in the proposition that a practice that subverts human reproduction is a human right.

The most painful thing for us is the undeniable awareness that human rights pre-suppose the existence of human beings and a practice that inevitably leads to human extinction cannot be a human right.

Human beings born out of human reproduction cannot celebrate homosexuality as a human right because it terminates the production of other human beings who should sustain human existence.

The worst travesty for us is that it is the very same Anglo-American slave masters who once bred Africans for slave labour who are now championing a practice that curtails African numbers to compromise Africa’s capacity to develop, sustain as well as defend herself.

It is as if Africans are being told that if they cannot reproduce for slavery (as slaves) then they should not reproduce at all.

And the sponsored activists amongst us cannot see that embracing a homosexual occupation of sacred Matopos and the associated homosexual rights is synonymous with embracing the right not to exist.

And this is happening at a time when the very same Anglo-American slave masters who once bred Africans for slave labour are force-breeding endangered animal species in captivity in order to guarantee their survival.

The same civilisation that has built centres to manage the compulsive use of wrong drugs (halfway houses/rehabilitation centres) has not built the same to manage the compulsive wrong use of sexual organs. 

It has refused to accord drug addiction the same status of human right granted to homosexuals even when the addict is peaceful towards fellow human beings.

The same civilisation that has built prisons to house those born with the compulsion to steal (a genetic inheritance to which no beneficiary has a say) has refused to accord kleptomania the same status of human right granted to homosexuals. 

It has offered kleptomaniacs alternative trades but denied homosexuals corrective hormonal engineering. 

Even when the same civilisation has mastered the organic modification of men into women and vice versa. 

Even when the same civilisation is celebrating Ukraine’s surrogate motherhood industry to increase European numbers.

Africans should find it not right that the same world that is breeding endangered species in captivity to save them from extinction should be encouraging Africans to be homosexuals and then arming them in fratricidal wars to optimise the genocide or, in other words, guarantee racial extinction.

The bottom line to all the foregoing is that Africans who are being forced (by those who once bred them for slave-labour) to accept homosexuality as a human right should, instead, perceive the sanction as a pre-emptive assault on the capacity of African men and women to present a patriotic front that reproduces the manpower necessary to develop and defend Africa. 

 To be continued…