Kangura No. 40
Editorial: A Cockroach (Inyenzi) Cannot Bring Forth a Butterfly
Genetic scientists tell us that intra-Tutsi marriages are responsible for their minority status (wherever they are found). Can you imagine people from the same family getting married to each other and procreating! However, they should know that if they are not careful, this segregation could lead to their total disappearance from this world. If such were the case (and such will be the case), they should not take it out on anyone, for they will be solely responsible. Would it then be the Hutus who eliminated firm with Machetes? In fact, they propagate everywhere that their minority status was the work of the Hutus who eliminated them with machetes. It’s like Landuald Ndasingwa, Minister in the Nsengiyaremye Government, who deceives the people and the international community that his disability resulted from beatings he received during his arrest among the accomplices. But, everyone knows that he was born disable. Disability is not a sin. It should be understood that this phenomenon is not peculiar to the Hutus. Even the nobles can become disabled, for God does not discriminate.
From the outset, we said that a cockroach cannot bring forth a butterfly, and that is true. A cockroach brings forth a cockroach. I do not agree with those who state the contrary. The history of Rwanda tells us that the Tutsi has remained the same and has never changed. His treachery and wickedness are intact in our country’s history. Administratively, the Tutsi regime has been marked by two factors: their women and cows. These two truths have kept the Hutus in bondage for 400 years. Following their overthrow during the 1959 social revolution, the Tutsis have never given up. They are doing everything possible to restore their regime by using their vamps and money, which has replaced the cow. In the past, the latter was a symbol of riches.
We are not wrong to say that an Inyenzi brings forth another Inyenzi. And in fact, can a distinction be made between the Inyenzi that attacked Rwanda in October 1990 and those of the 1960s? They are all related since some are the grand children of others. Their wickedness is identical. All the attacks were meant to restore the feudal-monarchy regime. The atrocities that the Inyenzi of today are perpetrating against the population are identical to those they perpetrated in the past, namely killings, plundering, rape of young girls and women… etc.
The simple fact that the Tutsi is called a snake in our language is enough and indeed says a lot. He is smooth-tongued and seductive and, yet, he is extremely wicked. The Tutsi is permanently vindictive. He does not express his feelings. He even smiles when he is in great pain. In our language, the Tutsi bears the name cockroach (Inyenzi), because under cover of darkness, he camouflages himself to commit crimes. The word cockroach again reminds us of a very poisonous snake. It is therefore not accidental that the Tutsi chose to be called that way. Whoever wants to understand should understand. Indeed, the cockroach cannot bring forth a butterfly. At close examination, the Tutsi treachery of today is not at all different from that of the years gone by. The history of Rwanda which bears witness teaches us that the Tutsis had enslaved the Hutus for a long time by using their women and cows. Following their overthrow in 1959, they again used their vamps and money (cows in the past) to subject the Hutus once again to slavery. The first Republic managed to stay afloat thanks, in particular, to late Grégoire Kayibanda who knew the Tutsi treachery very well. For its part, the second Republic fell at its inception into the Inyenzi-Tutsi trap. The Tutsis mainly blinded the Hutus who held important posts in the government. The latter assured them that there would be “peace” and “unity” in which, they, themselves, did not believe. For a long time, the Tutsis married their vamps to them. While the Hutus were engaged in community development activities, the Tutsis were preparing the attack to regain power.
When the Hutus arrived, Rwigema and his colleagues had already crossed Kagitumba, and there was talk about a surprise-attack. Had not been for the bravery of our army, Rwanda would have been captured without resistance. While Tutsi vamps sent to sleep, distracted the influential Hutus in this country, the Tunis were pursuing university studies and, today, they are medical doctors, professors, lawyers, religious leaders… they monopolize the entire business sector of the country. What is more, the Hutus are tearing each other apart, in the full glare of the Tutsis, under the pretext that some are Abakiga and the others Abanyenduga, or that the some are Interahamwe and the others Inkuba, C.D.R. or Abakombozi. If the Hutus are not careful, spin-offs from their 1959 revolution may go over to the Tutsis.
And even during this time of multi-party politics, the Tutsis continue to mislead the Hutus. The Tutsi would tell you that he is an M.R.N.D. member whereas he fights it by urging its Hutu members to kill each other and to destroy each other’s homes. The Tutsi would tell you that he is an M.R.N.D. member whereas he not forgotten that this party overthrew the Tutsi regime in 1959. The Tutsi will fight the Hutu party, the C.D.R., under the guise that it segregates. How can the C.D.R. do this whereas the Hutus are the same? And yet, they say nothing about the P.L. composed exclusively of the Tutsis, except the Hutus it recruits to serve as a front. When the Tutsis formed their parties (P.L., R.P.F.), they never could have imagined that the Hutus would have their own party, the C.D.R., which tells them the truth. A Tutsi can declare that he is Tutsi but when the Hutus does likewise he is considered a segregationist! The Tutsi has laws governing him, but the Hutu who declares that he has 10 commandments that he must observe to defend himself, he is considered a killer. And the Hutus who say that no cockroach can bring forth a butterfly are considered as segregationists.