Paul Kersey and Sam Dixon analyze the suppressed 1960s Italian documentary Africa Addio, alleging President Lyndon Johnson banned it to protect anti-colonial narratives. They contrast the film's depiction of post-decolonization massacres in Angola and Zanzibar with optimistic liberal predictions, arguing modern media airbrushes such chaos. The hosts claim a darker cut exists showing cannibalism, asserting that accusations of racism stem from ideological intolerance rather than factual reporting on African self-rule failures. Ultimately, they argue the film predicts current turmoil in Haiti and American cities, challenging the notion that all Black struggles result solely from white supremacy. [Automatically generated summary]
I am joined once again by Mr. Sam Dixon, and this is what is tentatively going to be called the White Man's Library.
And this week we have a interesting choice, Mr. Dixon.
We're going to look at a book that is a companion to a movie, a documentary that was made in the 1960s when the dark continent of Africa was being decolonized.
And I can only be referring to the documentary that Italian filmmakers made and a book, by the way, called Africa Adeo.
Mr. Dixon, go ahead.
Well, Africa Deo in Italian, of course, means goodbye Africa.
Sort of like Ann Colder's book, Adios America.
And it has an interesting history.
I can brag of myself.
I think I'm the one that retrieved it from obscurity.
In 1963, when I was already a thought criminal, I learned in the little sort of underground newspapers we subscribed to that there had been this movie called Africa Deo, which was a big hit in Europe.
I think it was made by the same people who made a whole series of Italian movies that were well received in America.
Yeah, they were called Mondo, I believe.
Yeah, Mondo Connie or something.
But anyway, what I found out, which now we know it'd be all over the internet, but then they could suppress it, was that Lyndon Johnson and Arthur Goldberg, who was our ambassador to the UN, they had, maybe it was 64, because Kendi would have been dead.
Johnson was president, but they met with the theater owners in America.
There are only a few people that actually own theaters.
They're held by massive chains.
And so if you can easily, if you get them all to work together, you can prevent people from seeing something.
But Johnson and Goldberg had called these people in and said that this movie must never be shown in America because it will undermine faith in racial equality and it will take support from our program against white colonialism in Africa.
And that's happened.
Americans never saw it.
And years later, my mind went back to it.
I went online and found that it had been pirated and that the things were out.
And I started telling people about it.
And I think that I played a role in it coming to people's attention.
But it's a magnificent movie.
And it shows what actually happened when the whites withdrew.
Friends of mine I recommend it to have told me that they showed it to their children and white people in general, especially those of British background, are very sentimental about animals.
And children are very sentimental about animals.
And it shows the horrors that ensued when the whites were no longer there to guard the game preserves and how they were masked zebras and the elephants.
And they said they did more to win their children over to their point of view than anything they ever did with them.
So I recommend to our listeners that they find it online and show it to their children and they watch it themselves.
It's a great, great movie.
Well, it's a great movie.
The book, though, is what we're going to be talking about along with the movie, because again, it's Oscar season.
I know you didn't go to the theater, sir, and see one battle after another, which is basically an anti-fu film.
I know you didn't go to the theater and see Sinners, which is a all white people are worse than vampires and nothing better than a Klansman film.
Those are the two movies that are up for best movie of 2026 in the Oscars, the Academy Awards, to just show you the anti-white nature.
And as you said, in the mid-60s, just to clarify, the movie came out in 67.
The book came out in 1966.
Okay.
It was later than I thought.
But Jonathan Goldberg put a stop to it.
Yep.
And we'll read from Roger Ebert's review of the film in 1967, which I think is absolutely hilarious.
But it's really important because the book and the movie are available.
They're readily available on Amazon.
You can go on eBay.
You can get a pirated copy of the movie on YouTube, but you can actually purchase the documentary and the book as well.
The book is about 300 pages long.
It's a tremendous companion to the movie.
And it opens up.
It's by Jacopetti and Franco Prosperia, Prosperi.
And it is just this incredible little paperback.
Again, if you get a copy of it, take very good care because they're not going to reprint this unless Antelope Hill or someone else gets the rights to it or if it's no longer under copyright.
And Mr. Dixon, I'd like to just read from the beginning so people know what this book and what this movie is all about.
And the story of a mighty human drama, too little known, the death of the old Africa of white hunters and European colonials, the birth of a new Africa in blood and pain and hope.
For three years, Walieto Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi traveled throughout Africa, filming in color episodes, an unforgettable, brutal reality.
The massacre at Angola, the slaughter of 12,000 Arabs in one bloody week on Zanzibar, the mound of human hands cut from the living bodies of the Watusi, the merciless slaughter of wild animals in the Kenya game preserves, the dying embers of the Mau Mau horror, the fighting in the Congo and the seething unrest in Johannesburg.
You wonder how these films were ever made, how the men who recorded these truths ever escaped alive.
This book, based on the most stunning film ever made, describes the scenes that passed before the camera.
But to understand the bloody birth pangs of Africa, one must know something of the African past.
And so to record, so to the record of the film is added a text of 70,000 words that brings the reader to the moment seen on the screen: the vision of Africa aflame of Africa now.
That's a pretty awesome intro to the book because it's uncentered, it's unfiltered.
And though a lot of people at the time when it came out tried to claim that the Italian gentleman who put together the film staged everything, they just recorded history unfolding before their eyes as decolonialism was occurring, Mr. Dixon, and black rule was instituted throughout Africa.
Yes, the you know, leftists love to, the system loves to find little factoids that aren't really relevant with which to discredit the main story.
What matters in the movie are the pictures of the massacres, the brutality toward the wild animals, and this kind of thing.
You know, I'm sure there were things, and they struck me when I first saw it.
When I got a copy, when I thought back to it, there were things I thought about it that you got a brief moment.
Mr. Dixon's always on call.
Anyway, I'm going to silence that.
I'm sorry.
There we go.
Anyway, there are things in there.
The end, when they're showing whites on the beach in South Africa jumping on sort of trampolines or blankets or something, that seemed contrived.
And then there's one thing that I thought immediately was contrived.
They have a scene in which they say that the journalists were grabbed by one of these African leaders who was perpetrating a massacre of somebody, the Arabs or something.
They were going to kill them all.
And they line them up.
They're going to shoot them.
But then he looks at their passports and he says, wait, these guys are not white.
They're Italians.
Well, that seemed far-fetched.
And also, when you looked at it, the Italians were not scared enough for it to be real.
If they'd really thought they were being shot at, you would have seen fear in their faces.
But yeah, there are things like that.
What Actually Happened In Africa00:14:54
But the message of the book is correct.
The book and the movie, the messages are correct.
And there are things that need to be seen.
And all this stuff was airbrushed out of the reporting in America.
The whole idea, and you have to have lived through those times, remember that the attitude of people like Huntley Brinkley and Walter Cronkite and the American media was that now that we finally got the British and French out of Africa, why, Ghana is going to be like Norway in three or four years.
The Peace Corps will go there and people will be living in suburban houses with air conditioning and showering every day.
And it'll be just like Norway.
And that's how firmly a lot of these liberals believed or claimed to believe in their future multiracial utopia.
Well, I mean, it's interesting to put things in perspective in the United States.
America at that point was 90% white.
The black population was engaging in post-1964 riots, almost joyous riots, sir.
Because most of the worst riots happened after the passing of the 64 Civil Rights Act.
Newark, Watts, Detroit was 1967.
You had these just colossal loss of life, loss of property, and these black revolts.
In fact, Life magazine called the Detroit riot the Negro Revolt in 1967 when Detroit was still a majority white city.
And by the way, that also was the communist line, which the sympathizers to the Communist Party and the media picked up.
And Herbert Opteker, the chief theoretician of the Communist Party in America and the father of Bettina Opteker, who was one of the two people that launched the new lab, he emphasized in his writings the importance of characterizing things like the Watts riots as black proletarian rebellions and not as mere riots.
And Life magazine, unsurprisingly, fell into step with that communist nomenclature and semantics.
Yeah, and it's so fascinating to think at the same time that you have, you know, in the 60s, obviously, Rhodesia still exists.
I believe Ian Smith, what, that was the late 60s, early 70s when he made his famous proclamations.
You had the situation with the South Africans holding firm with apartheid.
I don't believe that the UN ambassador at that point, Andrew Young, had basically declared a global intifada against those two nations to do embargoes and boycott.
As of yet, those were the only two nations that were holding firm, but there was this just fervent desire for black self-government, for black self-rule.
And what Africa audio shows is whites abandoning what their ancestors had created, what they had tried to instill civilization on the African continent for their posterity.
And some of the scenes are just, they're haunting.
But the book, again, I'd like to just read again from the book because, again, it sets the stage for so much of what you're watching.
It goes into so much greater detail.
Obviously, like I said, the movie is so important.
The initial cut, Mr. Dixon, it excised roughly 40 minutes from the film that was shown in a few American theaters.
Again, we'll read from Roger Ebert's review of the film, which he called the most racist film ever made, even worse than Than Lenny Rifenstah, Riefenstahl from Germany, which is, I guess that's high praise in some ways.
But it's stunning to think that there was this international desire for this movie to come out because in Europe it was a sensation.
These two filmmakers were considered some of the top documentarians of their time.
And it really has over the past 20 years.
It is available.
I mean, it's not something you have to pirate.
You can get on Amazon.
It's called In America, by the way, Africa Blood and Guts, not Africa Dio.
It's more, it's widely known as Africa Blood and Guts.
But the writers say this, Mr. Dixon: the old Africa has disappeared.
Untouched jungles, huge herds of wild game, high adventure, the happy hunting grounds.
Those are dreams of the past.
Today there is a new Africa, modern and ambitious.
The old Africa died amidst the massacres and devastations, which we filmed.
But revolutions, even for the better, are seldom pretty.
America was built over the bones of thousands of pioneers and revolutionary soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Indians and millions of bison.
The new Africa emerges over the graves of thousands of whites and Arabs, millions of blacks, and over those bleak boneyards that once were the game preserves.
What the camera sees, it films pitilessly, without sympathy, without taking sides.
Judging is for you to do later.
This film only says farewell to the old Africa and gives to the world the picture of its agony.
Pretty impressive prose there, an exposition to set the stage for what you're going to find in the film and the book.
Yeah.
Well, I would quibble.
He says that America was built upon the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American Indians.
Actually, if you compare the behavior of whites in that subject, the treatment of the American Indians to the treatment that the Indians gave to each other, the whites come off looking very good.
The premise behind all this stuff is that the Cherokees and the other Indian tribes who are here had been in possession of the land from the beginning of time, and that they were the initial occupiers of the territories they have when whites arrived.
That's not true.
The Cherokees had their lands because they had conquered the mound builders and exterminated them.
They didn't create reservations for them like our ancestors did.
But anyway, I'm not here to advocate for being sort of racial mother Teresa's, but our ancestors' behavior was very different from the behavior of the blacks.
Have we lost each other?
Nope, I'm here.
I'm just listening.
It's funny because I was actually going to go into that.
My computer suddenly went down.
We'll have to hope that Devin can cut that out.
No, I can hear it all.
But no, the America was not built on this kind of thing.
And Americans, they did foolishly kill some species, like the passenger pigeons and the Carolina parakeet.
And they greatly reduced the bison, but they started a conservation movement when people realized that the animals were in danger.
And we still work very hard to try to preserve animal life, which we will not be able to do because of immigration, because of the swamping of our country of the immigrants.
Things like the California condor and the hooping crane and the Rosead Spoonbills will become extinct and the work of the white conservationist movement will be undone.
Yeah, I mean, we will talk about that at a later date.
We can go deep into the Sierra Club and the perfidity of a $100 million donation, which said this is contingent upon you not talking about immigration, legal and illegal, and what that's going to do to the environment.
Again, it was a fellow Atlanton, Ted Turner, who basically brought back the bison in America on his property out west.
But what we're going to talk about, getting back to Africa Audio, Adio, it's so important to think about the preservations and the way that the whites in Africa had set up these preservations to preserve animals.
Because as we've seen post-colonialism, as Wakanda has yet to be birthed anywhere in the African continent, the wholesale destruction of animals has occurred.
Poaching is a horrendous problem as we learned about the extinction of one animal after another.
I think a couple of years ago, the last white rhino died, which was tragically symbolic.
But this film, I mean, what's fascinating about the film and the book, sir, is that we get some of the only footage of what happened in Zanzibar as that nation, as that colony was handed over to black rule.
And some of the footage, again, Roger Ebert said, this has to be all fake.
This can't be real.
But it just shows the utter savagery of what occurred in the moments after whites just capitulated and handed over things.
And it's captured for all time because it's exactly what happened in the South during Reconstruction.
It's exactly what's happened in city after city, county after county in the United States when the same thing happens.
Not to the same extent, but we could talk about what happened in Clayton County, Georgia, back in 2005 when the first black sheriff was elected, Victor Hill, and he fired all the white people.
And he had all the white cops and he had them marched out with snipers on the roof.
I mean, black rule leads to the destruction of the civilization that existed prior and the birth of something new.
And that's why Africa Dio is absolutely vital to read and watch.
Also, it's a good example of censorship.
You know, liberals hide behind the idea that there's no censorship because there's little formal government censorship in America, although there is some.
But the government in America doesn't consist merely of people that wear the badge of congressman or senator or Supreme Court member.
It's the system at large.
It's the corporate media, the legacy media, the system media.
It's all these organizations and book publishing companies and movie chains like Goldberg and Johnson got to suppress Africa Dio back in the 1960s.
And in the case of what you're talking about in what's shown in both the book and the movie, Africa Dio, these are shocking things that ought to have been on the front pages of newspapers all over America and on television.
You have footage there, like you say, of the 12,000 Arabs massacred in the island off the coast of Africa.
And that's not fake.
AI did not exist back then and it could not have been fake.
It's all legitimate.
Now, you can just imagine if somebody had pictures of Nazis massacring 12,000 Jews and the Jews' bodies all lying all over the ground.
You see it 20 times a year.
It'd be in all the history books.
Anything about if whites had ever done that to Cherokees, it'd be all over the place.
But no, our rulers decided this doesn't help with our anti-white hate program.
And so this news, these pictures will never be shown.
The movie won't be shown.
And the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Life Magazine, they will not show these pictures or tell people what's happening in Africa.
Well, going back to that review that I mentioned that I teased earlier, Roger Ebert, he wrote this on April 25th, 1967.
Africa Dio is a brutal, dishonest, racist film.
It slanders a continent, at the same time, diminishes the human spirit.
And it does so to entertain us.
It claims to be a documentary of what has happened in Africa since colonialism ended.
It shows us sadism and tells us we must not fear to see the truth, but the sadism itself has been staged for the cameras.
It weeps for the slaughtered wild game of Africa, but who weeps for the game tortured before the cameras, before our eyes?
The film begins with a scene familiar from a dozen newsreels.
A British colonial governor boards a launch and is taken to an offshore ship.
The Union Jack comes down and a new flag is flown.
Another colony is independent.
But independence has come too soon, the narrator tells us.
Africans are not ready for self-government.
Europe has abandoned her baby, the narrator mourns, just when it needs her the most.
Who has taken over now that the colonialists have left?
The advertising spells it out for us.
Raw, wild, brutal, modern-day savages.
Isn't that what happened?
Yes.
Well, you know, that is exactly what happened.
And it's what happened in Haiti.
I listened yesterday as I was driving around Atlanta to a book on Audible about the Duvaliers.
And the book discussed how Haiti's problems are caused by French colonialism back in the 1700s and by the fact that Haiti was required to pay an indemnity as part of its recognition by France later in the 1800s and all that.
Well, no, that doesn't account for the Haiti's problems.
Estonia was subjected to much worse horrors than the blacks in Haiti by the Soviets.
But it didn't destroy the Estonians.
They came out of it and they have a very prosperous, civilized country.
It's caused by genetics.
And it's sad.
I don't get any thrill out of saying that.
And there are a lot of, like I said last time, there are a lot of blacks I know who are fine people, and I don't want to hurt their feelings.
But that is the nature of the situation.
You know, going back to the book, as I'm trying to move here to make sure that our audio is still recording properly, excuse me, one second.
We learn that the two Italian documentary filmmakers, they spent two years in Africa, right around the time, like I said, when Zanzibar was handed over the Congo.
And early in the book, we learned, Mr. Dixon and listener, that Yacopetti and Prosperity travel with the crew because they are not newspaper journalists, although they have been in the past.
Failed European Interference00:15:39
They are movie journalists.
Not movie two news or news of that sort, a new kind of journalism altogether.
This kind of journalism does not sketchily suggest the news through a brief five-minute newscast or water it down and cut it to pieces like a typical newspaper article.
As they used to say, it presents reality as big as life in all its power and tragedy That the war is exactly what war is, so that death is real and frightening.
Despite the fact that Jacopetti and Prosperity lugged movie cameras around with them and the finest spirit of old-time journalistic daring do, they managed to get where no one else got to see what few, if any, other newsmen saw.
They brought out the only documentation of what happened on Zanzibar during the revolution days there.
No other Western journalists succeeded in getting to Zanzibar and back without being captured and having their equipment smashed.
Literally, no other photography of the revolution has been brought back to the West.
Jacopetti and Prosperity filmed Dar es Salaam at the height of its agony and brought back what is certainly the best photographic portrait of an African military mutiny and race riot.
They were the first journalists of any nation to get into Stanleyville after the Belgian paratroop drop two days before any other newsmen.
They photographed from the front lines the terrible civil war in the Congo and the guerrilla war in Angola.
And they were probably the only journalists who bothered to go to Rwanda against official orders, of course, to record the extermination, the tragedy of the extermination of the Watusi.
I mean, Mr. Dixon, these guys were brave beyond words.
This is like Richard Burton trying to go to Mecca and disguise himself as a Mohammedan.
They were out there capturing stuff, and Roger Ebert has the audacity to say this is all fake.
None of this happened because it completely exposed what civil rights was trying to say: that equality exists.
We're all the same.
There are no biological differences.
Race differences are just a thin veneer for white people trying to maintain the implicit bias and structural inequalities of a white supremacist system.
Well, also, when you see the movie and also read about these journalists, they were not white racists.
They actually believe that, well, we shouldn't, the Europeans shouldn't have left so fast because if they just had some more schools, everything would have turned out well.
No, they say in the film that we do not intend to serve prejudice and racism and all that.
So it wasn't that way.
But this lying about Africa, it's endemic in the whole anti-white liberal leftist Marxist movement.
I listened to national public radios, all things considered.
And when Trump spoke with terms of great derogation of Somalia, the next day, Mary Louise Kelly and All Things Considered were on the ball.
They said that they were going to tell us the truth about Somalia.
And they had two people, two journalists who were in Somalia, and the first one explained that she was at a street, a block party in Mogadishu, and it was just wonderful.
Delicious tidbits of Somali cooking had been prepared and were for sale.
And people were dancing in the streets.
They were dancing folk dances and singing.
It was just, Mogadishu is just wonderful.
And then they went to the beach where they had a male journalist and he explained that he was at the beach.
I mean, literally, it was the most lyrical reporting.
You can imagine.
He said, I'm standing here on the beach where the golden sands of Somalia stretch down to the warm azure blue waters of the Indian Ocean.
And people are here with their families and they're enjoying swimming.
They virtually describe it like it's a new south of France.
And, you know, of course, the obvious question is: if it's so great, why did all these Somalis come here?
And maybe Mary Louise Kelly and these journalists, maybe they should be deported with their kids and their families so that they can go and enjoy themselves in this blissful Somalia.
But there's no end to their lying.
There's no end of it.
The Europeans now are being subjected to a big guilt trip over colonialism.
That's a big deal there.
They're not using it here because they can't quite impose it upon Americans as easily as they can upon Britons and Frenchmen.
But they're talking about the terrible colonialism.
We invaded these wonderful countries and we imposed our values on them.
Well, yeah, we ruled over India, the rich ruler of India, and they put a stop to the lovely practice of sati in which the widows of men who died before their wives were burned alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands.
Yeah, we interfered with that lovely Indian custom.
In Africa, we interfered with Dahomey.
In Dahomey, human flesh was a staple of life.
On feast days, they would have a thousand humans corralled in a pen to provide the meat for the big ceremony.
We interfered with that.
So that's the reality of what these countries were like and what they're becoming now that whites are no longer there.
We're going to have to talk about what's the correct pronunciation.
Benin, is that the city of blood?
Have you ever read that book?
No.
Okay.
That'll be added to our list so we can get and like you said, the other city that Burton went to, the annunciation is Dahoney.
Is that the correct pronunciation?
I understand it's Dahomey.
I may not have it quite right.
And that's the kind of thing that people like this Ebert would say, well, he couldn't even pronounce Dahomey.
It's not little things like that.
It's the real facts of the matter.
It's where the rubber hits the road.
And little intellectuals love to dance around sort of snobbish things like that.
They'll say things like, oh, he doesn't have a doctorate in history.
Like only people who have doctors in history are allowed to talk about things like the Katinewoods massacre, in which Frank Roosevelt's buddy Stalin murdered 20,000 Polish officers.
And Roosevelt, knowing the truth, went on the radio and lied to the American people and said it was all done by the Germans.
Yeah, but you don't have a doctorate.
You don't have to have a PhD from an Ivy League school permitting you to say that.
But they'll raise that issue.
Oh, you don't have a doctorate in history.
Getting back to that Roger Ebert review, which I think is really important because he became basically the preeminent reviewer of movies at that time.
And of course, he went on with Sisko and Ebert to have a show in the 80s and 90s where they basically decided if a movie got a thumbs up or thumbs down.
And he gives Africa a Dio an obvious thumbs down.
It's as much as you could give a movie.
He wrote this.
During a year in South Africa, I only rarely heard such language in regards to the African people.
And then usually in bars.
Yet here it was being presented as gospel truth in a supposedly reputable documentary.
One would not, of course, object to a dispassionate study of Africa's setbacks since independence, but one would expect an examination of its progress as well.
No hint of anything but disaster, however, is given in this film by the makers of Mondo Kane.
As in their earlier documentaries, Jacopetti and Prosperity have combined a saccharin soundtrack, artsy photography, and an authoritative sounding narration to lend respectability to a film offering perversion and brutality as its fare.
Mr. Dixon, I mean, isn't perversion and brutality just part and parcel of visiting the dark continent?
Well, I mean, it's just an effort to avoid facts.
It's fact-free thinking.
But in his case, running that review ensured that he would remain a reviewer for a major paper and he'd have groceries in the pantry.
And I have a much more cynical view of him than our mutual friend has of them, has of him.
But the, you know, it, you know, one wonder is why he even wrote the review.
His pals, LBJ, the civil rights leader, legislator, and Arthur Goldberg, they had ensured that the American people would not see it.
So why did he even write the review?
That's a great.
Well, again, it was because it was an international sensation.
It was something that people were watching and talking about.
It did get a full theatrical release in Europe and an uncut version, by the way, because again, when it was released in the United States, they cut 40 minutes of the exposition out, severely hindering the story, which is why you can go to Amazon and pick up the full documentary.
Again, it's called Africa Blood and Guts.
Search for that on either eBay or Amazon, and you can purchase it for only 15, 20 bucks.
And I strongly recommend you do.
But again, get the companion because sometimes the book is better than the movie.
In this case, the book is an amazing companion piece to the documentary.
Because again, nothing that they're showing as they go into great detail, Mr. Dixon, in the book, of just the arduous trekking they had to do, especially to get to Zanzibar, where the authors write that at the time, they were afraid to even divulge where they got access to a plane to fly into Zanzibar because the people who lent them the plane, who they leased the plane from, could face death if it became known who did that.
I mean, that was the sordid nature of their having to traverse Africa at the time.
And I think it's just such a fascinating book.
I'd actually never read it until this week as we were preparing for this program because I thought that the movie, I thought that the documentary showed all you needed to see.
But as you start to learn more and more about their trials and the tribulations of just getting to the Congo, to Rwanda, to, of course, there's that great scene in the movie where they are showing the Africans where they say that they're surrounding an area the size of Rhode Island, 10,000 strong, and they prepare to close in on trapped game.
And that's where they're preparing to kill every animal within this within this geographic area.
I'm not sure if you remember that scene, but that's for a European, for a white person, that's a pretty haunting scene of how just unbelievably vicious that these Africans were in the absence of white colonial rule.
It also shows how short-term their thinking is and how they have been encouraged to blame whites for everything because the attitude of blacks at that time was that the white people love animals and they protected them.
They denied us access to meat.
And so there was a tremendous sense in Africa of self-righteousness in invading the game preserves and wiping out the animals and eating them.
There's another scene that Ebert talks about that in the book they go into far greater detail about is Ebert writes this, sir, quote, one dubious scene shows white boars purportedly leaving Kenya in cattle-drawn wagons for the long trek back to the Cape.
A freedom march in reverse, the narrator explains.
These boars settled Kenya generations ago, but have been driven from their own country.
I haven't written, I haven't read much about post-colonial Kenya.
Have you?
Is this something you're familiar with?
No, but you know enough about it.
If you're people like us who seek the real facts and our thought troubles, you know, it's like in America, you know, the anti-white program in Africa has failed.
It failed in Haiti.
It's failed in America.
You know, when they talk about Dr. King and how he freed blacks and all this stuff, the assumption that's never dealt with straight out is that things have gotten better for African Americans since the civil rights bill was passed.
That's just not true.
You know, there's never been a study that showed that mixing the races in the schools brought about any improvement, any significant academic improvement in the performance of black students.
It's a complete failure.
There have been lots of such studies.
They're just not reported because they don't have the right data on them in them.
And likewise, as I've said before, the rate of black homeownership is now lower than it was in 1965 and 66 when they passed the Fair Housing Act to enable blacks to make it illegal to discriminate against blacks and selling your house, as well as all kinds of programs of down payment assistance and buying down the interest rates to encourage black homeownership.
This has failed.
These things have failed.
For generations now, we have been pursuing policies and programs in the absence of any statistical evidence that they do any good.
And it's the same in Africa.
It's what you can expect.
You know, it's interesting because the book ends with a chapter on South Africa that regrettably is dated.
And I know there's a fiction story that we're going to discuss in the coming months, Camp of the Saints.
And in that book, it postulates that South Africa was the only nation that actually resisted the invasion of the Indian boat flotilla, if you recall.
I'm not sure if you've read that recently, if you have any memories of that, but we will be talking about Camp of the Saints, which was just actually republished by a publisher.
It's a fantastic edition that thankfully is getting a lot of great press and selling a lot of copies on Amazon.
So that's a wonderful thing.
But like I said, there's that one scene in the film where it does show what Cape Town looks like, and it's just beautiful blondes bronzed by the sun as they're running around on the beach.
And it's a very funny juxtaposition.
It juxtaposes that with the, I think there's a scene where some Africans are dancing right before.
So it's a very funny cut in the film, which, yeah, it's good to laugh at the horror that you're watching, even if it is just, you know, somewhat somewhat softened, you know, soften work in a way, especially knowing what happened to South Africa and Rhodesia in the subsequent decades.
White Experience And Tyranny00:05:06
Yes, well, look here again at that, how they minimize things.
The media, the system media, ridiculed Trump for referring to the genocide of Afrikaner farmers in South Africa.
I think maybe it's the New York Times, only 5,000 have died, been murdered.
Only 5,000.
The murder of one black man, Emmett Till, is an epic moment in American history according to the current regime in America that dominates academia and the news media.
You know, George Floyd was one black guy who is said to have been killed by a white cop.
5,000 whites.
That's not a genocide.
It's not something that should be talked about.
They even condemn Trump by saying that he's talking about it.
And this is something that white nationalists talk about.
With the clear implication being that if white nationalists talk about it, you can't talk about it.
You're not allowed to talk about it.
I will say that going back to the book, it does give the final chapter is about South Africa.
And it's pretty much worth the price of the book, Whatever You Pay a Loan, because it gives a tremendous history of the white experience of the Afrikaner, the British experience on or within that, within those boundaries that they established in South Africa.
So I strongly urge that's, like I said, the last chapter, and it's so fascinating because South Africa was, of course, the last holdout.
And with myself being born in the mid-1980s, 1985, Mr. Dixon, it's funny, growing up, I watched the PGA Professional Golf Association, the golf tour with my grandfather a lot.
And it'd always be fascinating when you'd see a white guy like Nick Price, Nick Faldo, or Ernie Ells.
I'm not sure if you even know those names, but they would talk about these South African or these Rhodesian professional golfers and how they had served in the South African Air Force or the Rhodesian Air Force.
And as a white kid in the 90s who's being taught that the greatest human being on the planet is Nelson Mandela, you're looking at this.
You're like, what are they talking about?
I thought South Africa was just populated by these downtrodden Africans who are now upholding the very concept of virtue and honor.
And wait a second, there were white guys fighting in the Air Force?
What are you talking about?
Those aren't South Africans.
Those are white people.
Because as an American, you don't understand and appreciate what had happened in Africa in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century before what Africa Dio shows.
Well, in America, we don't understand what happened in the past either.
We have the horrible Declaration of Independence and the narrative on American Revolution that somehow the United States is something new.
It has no relation to Europe.
The New York Times even had an op-ed piece by one of their writers about two or three Sundays back, who was very angry.
I think she's a black woman.
She was very angry that JD Vance had spoken to the military cadets at West Point about our European heritage.
And she said, we have no European heritage.
We're something new.
And she quotes Thomas Paine, who's a nut, a lunatic, saying that, oh, we're entirely new.
And so Americans don't have any, we think this country started in 1776.
We're cut off from 25 centuries of white experience that created this country.
We're cut off specifically from Britain where all of our ideas about freedom and property rights and that kind of thing, all of that was worked out in Britain long before the American Revolution.
And initially, they explicitly said we were fighting for the rights of Englishmen.
Then when Thomas Jefferson was designated as the guy to write the Declaration of Independence, he wanted to frame it in universal principles and philosophical nuttiness so as to get the chattering classes of France to support French intervention.
And now that's what Americans believe.
They talked every July 4th about the tyranny of King George and how we broke free of British tyranny.
Americans and the British in 1776 were the freest people on the planet.
We didn't break free of any tyranny.
You know, speaking, again, going back to tyranny, the one thing that I took when I first saw Africa Ideo, and as I've really just read the book, it's a very quick read, by the way.
Like I said, it's 300 pages, but it's like a small trade paperback.
And it's such a treasure to own.
And I encourage all of our listeners to get both the film, the documentary, and the companion book.
Painful Scenes Of Departure00:02:08
It makes me very, you know, almost melancholy that I didn't get to experience colonial Africa to be able to go on some of these hunts to enjoy Safari.
I mean, I don't know if I'd want to live in an area where, you know, gosh, for every one white man, there's 10,000 Africans.
But there's this unbelievable sense of civilization that exists, Sam.
And I'm sure you remember in the movie, there's a wonderful scene that I'll quote from in the book when they're in Kenya.
And here's the narration.
On a broad green lawn, carefully mowed and trimmed, decorated by lush flower gardens and elegant shade trees, several dozen whites prepare for the weekly highlands fox hunt.
Dressed in sparkling white riding pants and brilliant red hunting jackets, complete with tails, restless slapping their quirts against their tail riding boots, the hunters wait while black grooms lead shiny jumping horses out of their stables and dozens of hounds from their kennels.
While they wait, the whites accept a last round of cocktails from black servants.
Then, one by one, they mount their horses, each stepping into a pair of calloused black hands that lift them up onto their imported English saddles.
For a moment, the group waits while one blonde applies last-minute touches to her lipstick.
Then haughtily, she puts her riding boot into a black groom's handstep, swings one leg over the groom's head, and settles herself in the saddle.
Gayly, to the trumpeting of hunting horns, the superior race rides away.
Since there are no foxes in Kenya, the whites make do with an inferior substitute, a black houseboy dragging dead fox meat, specifically flown in from England at the end of a string.
Barefooted, sweating, the houseboy runs ahead of the pack over the plains, through the woods, along the edge of a lake, and past a native village, while the Africans watch him carefully, but impassively, their faces showing no emotion whatsoever.
Finally, quite unlike a decent fox, the panting houseboy scrambles up a tree.
That scene is, it shows the just dichotomy of the whole situation where you have.
It's a painful scene.
I think that's one of the arranged scenes.
Accusations And Conspiracy00:10:44
I can't believe it really happened.
The most painful scenes to me are where the whites are selling off their possessions or their houses and are preparing to go back to England.
But, you know, that's life.
But here's another thing which is kind of related.
It's largely different, but climate warming, climate change.
Back in the late 60s and 70s, that was a big issue.
And the reason the thing they blame for climate warming, which I think probably is taking place, I know a lot of people disagree, but I don't really know.
So maybe they're right.
But anyway, the reason was given was that the Third World had gotten white man's technology and they were chopping down all the forests with chainsaws.
And they would have periodically, they'd show these scenes taken from satellites of the forest canopy disappearing in the Congo and the Amazon.
And I think that's true.
They're destroying their environment.
It is a small planet, and they're destroying our environment too.
You'll never see that today.
It all has to be blamed on the internal combustion engine.
That's a feature of white civilization.
They cannot discuss the fact that when you chop the forest down, yes, it creates a heat bubble.
We see that in Atlanta, where we don't have as many trees in the city as you do farther out.
In the summer, the city of Atlanta would be five or six degrees hotter than 30 or 40 miles outside the city where you still have a canopy over the land.
But yeah, I mean, these people are wrecking the world.
One of the really fascinating things, Mr. Dixon, that I think you'll appreciate when you do a really deep dive to rediscover the book Africa Adio is a detailed explanation of the fight that these two Italian documentary filmmakers had to undertake just to get the film out because of basically the communists within Italy tried to say that they were participants in some of these horrific massacres.
And the book goes into great detail about how the movie was delayed for two years, which makes me wonder if you had actually read about the fact that there was this movie, this documentary being made, because it took them two years to be able to even get the movie out into circulation due to the extreme pressure that they faced from the Italian courts, which tried to say that you guys were participants in these massacres and these slayings of Africans.
And that's a fascinating story into itself.
I'll read from it here because this is some stuff that I think you'll find fascinating.
The book says that two basic accusations were made again and again and again against Africa Deo, that it is raw sensationalism and that it is a racist document.
In answer to the accusation of sensationalism, Jacopetti said, It's ridiculous to call this a sensational film.
It is sensational, if you want to use that word, when hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
Such facts are sensational, but I didn't create them.
I didn't kill anyone or fake their deaths.
Indeed, there are many scenes that we did not put into the film because they were too brutal.
They really happened.
Like the shots of children with their fingers cut off in Dar es Salaam.
But we felt they were too horrible to show.
In Dar, we filmed enough material for a half hour, but we used only about two minutes of it.
And at Kindu, we filmed the deaths of 13 Italian airmen who were killed and eaten by cannibals.
But we left that out too because we were afraid it would be too easy to use such material for racist purposes.
We eliminated, eliminated hours of material that were, believe it or not, too strong, much stronger than what's in the film.
End quote.
Mr. Dixon, reading that from this book, it makes you wonder: does this footage exist still?
And could filmmakers resurrect it and put out the true cut of Africa Adio that even these two Italian filmmakers were too afraid to show at the time because guess what?
It justified a lot of the views that the colonialists had about Africa, about African self-rule, and about the savagery of the African people.
We can only wonder, you know, it's surprising how things often do escape and preserved for history.
The material on the Katin Woods massacre that I think I mentioned, where Stalin killed 20,000 Polish army officers, and he and Roosevelt and Churchill, when it was uncovered, knowingly lied about it and blamed it on the Germans, who even prosecuted at Nuremberg for this crime that the judges knew had been perpetrated by the prosecutors.
But anyway, but still, the pictures remain and the evidence remained.
And after the fall of communism, it became ever clearer that this was perpetrated by the communists.
So this kind of stuff does come out.
And it's surprising how the censors are not clever enough to see that it's destroyed.
Mr. Dixon, as we're doing this podcast today for the White Man's Library, I've kind of dawned on me something that's shocking even to me because I tried to look for passages from this book online just to see if other people have highlighted or talked about the book in the past or recently online.
And Google is becoming increasingly hard to use to search because it's so censored.
But what's fascinating is this is what I wanted to end this podcast on, these last passages, because it shows that there's an even darker cut of this film out there.
I mean, cannibals eating Italian airmen.
Good gosh.
Like, again, these two Italian filmmakers were brought before tribunals and trials where they had to, you know, say that A, the film wasn't racist.
And the book ends, or the introduction ends with this passage.
And I'd like to read from it because I think it's going to be a great way for you to close us out.
The question remains then: why has this film so persistently been accused of racism?
Because the facts of Italian politics, which were a very important factor in starting, exaggerating, and continuing the controversy in Italy, the crucial reason is the subject matter.
Not the way it is handled, but the subject itself.
Africa Dio reports some of the most horrible events of the decade, which happened in Africa, which happened to people with black skin.
Jacopetti and Prosperi have answered the charge of racism time and time again.
They have appeared on panels and at mock trials.
They have been interviewed, examined, and cross-examined.
They have stated flatly that they did not make a racist film and that they have answered accusations about individual scenes to prove this.
Yet the accusations have continued.
Africa Dio was awarded a Donatello David, Italy's equivalent of an Oscar.
But at the last minute, the cabinet minister who was to hand the award to Jacopetti backed down, although he had not protested months before when the award decision was made, because he said he did not want to be associated with a film about Africa that disagreed both with his opinions on the subject and the stated policies of the Italian government.
Jacopetti said, had they been filming, had they been filming similar events in Europe, had they been filming World War II, there would have been no problem.
But now, because the skins of the people on the screen are black, Jacopetti and Prosperi are accused of racism.
It seems to make no difference that what they filmed were indisputably the facts.
The problem of anti-black racism has become so important and people have become so sensitive to it that almost no one can approach it simply, straightforwardly, without partiality and fear.
This oversensitivity has created what might be called two conspiracies concerning Africa.
One conspiracy, one is the conspiracy against Africa.
It is the successor to colonialism.
It claims that Africans are incapable of governing themselves and are making a mess of everything.
The other conspiracy is a conspiracy for Africa.
It refuses to notice the turmoil and confusion in Africa, or it constantly understates it because the possibility of harming or offending the new nations in Africa.
Jacopetti and Prosperity have taken part in neither of these conspiracies.
They have simply reported facts.
They did not imagine them.
They did not exaggerate them.
They simply reported them.
Few other people have done that in Africa.
Jacopetti and Prosperity deserve credit for it.
And if Africa Dio is viewed objectively, if its viewers and critics can achieve just a moment of objectivity, they will see the film for what it is, a remarkable piece of journalism that we cannot afford to disregard.
After seeing the film Jacopetti has said, one finds oneself at a crossroads.
Either one considers it as a condemnation of every kind of violence for which each of us shares the guilt, or one sees it as a macabre exciting brutality for its own sake.
But all of our efforts have been made to offer a significant work intended not as a sadistic pastime, but as an important documentary to be interpreted with objectivity.
You probably never heard those words before, Mr. Dixon.
You've probably never encountered or read about just how hard it was to get this film to even be shown in Italy, and the fact that it was awarded the equivalent of an Oscar by the Italian filmmaking industry.
And yet, as you've learned in this podcast, the filmmakers, the two filmmakers, Jacopetti and Prosperi, they deliberately hid much of the truth, even though they claimed to be objective.
And like I said, it makes you wonder where does all this footage exist still?
And is there some intrepid individual out there who can get their hands on it and upload it and just say, hey, this is what they really wanted to show you.
Here's these 13 Italian airmen who were eaten alive by Africans.
And they didn't show this because they were trying still to maintain some illusion of what post-colonial Africa would look like.
Hidden Truths About Africa00:05:29
Yes, well, we don't have that footage.
We may never have that footage, but we do have the movie.
And thanks to the internet, people like Lyndon Johnson and Arthur Goldberg can no longer suppress it.
That's why the system media hate and the system, the whole system, hates the internet and why they want somehow to try to bring it under control because it has enabled things like Africa Deo to break through the private as well as the public censorship.
The facts don't matter.
You have to realize that this mindset that we're up against, it's not an ideology.
It's a religion.
It's a fanatical religious belief that would make Toronto Palau and the Spanish Inquisition appear to be the models of moderation and objectivity.
They do not want their religion troubled by facts.
Facts get in the way, and belief and faith are what matter to them, not facts.
And you see this all the time.
In January this year, in one of the Sunday New York Times, on the front page, it appeared a long article attacking people who they said had illegally accessed research on babies of the different races in order to write articles, do research disputing human equality.
The article did not mention that this is prohibited and what had caused the blood pressure of all these people in government to go up was you're not supposed to sign a pledge that you won't use any of this research to dispute racial equality.
So it'd be sort of like requiring all the scientists down to Galileo, having the Inquisition require everyone to sign the pledges that they wouldn't uncover, use any fact that they found to impeach the idea that the sun went around the earth.
But anyway, they twisted it into a thing that they had invaded the privacy rights of all of these African-American babies.
But it's the same thing.
They don't want the truth.
They don't want the facts.
They don't want legitimate scientific research.
They want the articles of faith.
Well, and those articles of faith that we've had to live through, especially after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were passed, where that every problem that blacks face in the United States of America is a result of white supremacy, white privilege, implicit bias, structural racism.
And as Mr. Taylor and I often joke, they've even gone to start calling heat islands where there's too much asphalt in urban areas replete with blacks another form of discrimination.
But it cuts back, sir, and dear listener, to, again, this tremendous line from this book, because I think it's just as true today, if not more so, than in 1966 when this book came out.
I'd just like to finish with this.
They wrote this, quote, it seems to make no difference that what they filmed were indisputably the facts.
The problem of anti-black racism has become so important and people become so sensitive to it that almost no one can approach it simply, straightforwardly, without partiality and fear, end quote.
That really sums up this whole experiment.
As you said, we had a hypothesis that the races are all equal, that there are no biological differences in the races.
And we have decades now of this experiment and the results.
And we have conclusions we can come to that completely show that hypothesis to have been incorrect.
Actually, the inverse of what's reality.
Yes, but people now have access to the movie that the Americans were deprived of.
This movie's been out now for some almost 60 years.
Now's your chance to get the movie.
Since young people don't read books anymore, I would encourage them to start with the movie and to show the movie to their children.
Friends of mine who done that say that it had a tremendous impact on their children.
Well, I'll end with this.
Roger Ebert said this about the movie, which again, I recommend getting both the book and the movie.
Like you said, most people, again, will be like, oh, yeah, the movie is so much better than the book about like a Jurassic Park or something like that.
But here's what Roger Ebert wrote.
There are scenes even more odious of executions, decomposed bodies, burning flesh, suffering and death.
If only they were honestly presented, set in contacts, perhaps they could be justified, but they're not.
Instead, they are staged for our amusement, cloaked in the respectability of an impartial documentary.
And in the end, that is the most disgusting thing about this wretched film.
Again, the left would just say this is a wretched film that should have been banned, censored, and burned.
Like it was Nas Ferratu when the German filmmakers made Brahmstroeker's Dracula without the permission of his estate back in the 20s and demanded that every cut of the film be burned.
But thankfully someone didn't.
That's kind of what Africa audio feels like, a Deo.
It feels like something that shouldn't have ever seen the light of day.
Seeing Reality Before Your Eyes00:01:07
And yet it does.
And it opens the minds of those who see it to a reality that we, again, we've been told the exact opposite exists in Africa, in Somalia, in Haiti, in Detroit, in Atlanta, in Memphis, and in New Orleans during Katrina.
It's all the same.
And in Africa, Dio, you see the truth right before your lion eyes.
And it's the future.
In the 1920s, people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb, leftists, would go to the Soviet Union, and Largo Caballero did it in Spain.
They would come back and they would make statements, the same little mantra that we have seen the future and it works.
Well, in Africa, Dio's Africa and in modern Haiti, we have seen the future if something isn't done.
And no, it doesn't work.
Well, for this edition of The White Man's Library and the White Man's Filmography, The White Man's Cinema, we appreciate Sam Dixon for joining us.