Rhodesia, after it fell to Mugabe in 1980, was forgotten for many decades, but it matters greatly because it shows why the West is no longer what it once was
A short 🧵👇
First, what was Rhodesia?
It was the little land north of South Africa and south of the Belgian Congo, where decolonization meant chaos and slaughter that effectively hasn't ended since the Belgians left
Despite being landlocked and underpopulated, it was an economic powerhouse. It was the breadbasket of Africa, exporting food to the rest of the continent, and was an industrializing economy that was also successful at growing cash crops like tobacco
Notably, Rhodesia also didn't have apartheid. Rather, it had a voting system like America and much of the West, such as Britain used to have: anyone could vote so long as they owned a requisite amount of property
That restriction was meant to keep it a republic and percent the problem of democracy, which is mob voting and the wolves voting to eat the lamb
But despite its economic success, resistance to communism, and its hope to chart a course in Africa where the whites wouldn't face the fate of those left behind in Congo or Kenya and where blacks wouldn't face the same fate as in South Africa, America helped the USSR destroy it
Yes, America helped the Russian and Chinese communists destroy a functional, Western nation known for being "more British than the British"
The result was genocide. With Mugabe, the winning communist, first butchering the Ndebele tribe and then forcing white farmers off their land, killing many in the expropriation process
Britain helped too
Why? Why destroy an agricultural land that mimicked Britain at its Victorian height?
Because Cultural Marxism and liberalism generally had rotted the West from the inside. It was no longer comfortable with itself and its old values, and so wanted to destroy them
Particularly, it wanted to destroy the twin concepts of natural hierarchy and cultural achievement
As a reminder, the Old World, and much of the new (South America and the Cavalier South) were ruled by hierarchy: landed aristocrats, whether titled or gentry, handed down their wealth and prestige from generation to generation
As a result, wealth was largely controlled by an elite few, and those few were the ones who, largely, were the ones best suited to responsible nurture it in the manner of a garden
That brought with it noblesse oblige, or the concept that the privileged should care for their social inferiors in the name of the community.
But they weren't to destroy all wealth in the impossible quest to eradicate poverty; Jesus reminded us that the poor with always be with us, after all
Instead, donated was responsibly spent on bettering the circumstances of the poor, such as by building worker cottages
Or it was spent on cultural achievements. The great statues of the Renaissance. The beautiful Palladian country houses of England. The hunting castles of Scotland. The music of Mozart and Beethoven
All came only as a result of noble wealth; hierarchy enabled achievement
Then came Marxism and Leninism, the twin ideas of enforced egalitarianism and weaponized grievance
Death duties, punitive income taxation, social leveling, and hostility to beauty resulted from those impulses, destroying much of the Old World mindset
This era, roughly the two or three decades after WWII, saw the British nationalized coal industry destroy Wentworth Woodhouse, the greatest of country houses, out of envy. It saw America destroy the space program to focus on welfare. And, perhaps worst of all, it saw former empires turn on their colonial subjects
Hatred of hierarchy meant hatred of colonialism and imperialism after all, so Britain and France effectively helped communists carry out atrocities in Algeria, Kenya, the Congo, and more as they left and helped the "national governments" accede to power
Rhodesia saw what happened in the Congo and told Britain to get lost, with WWII Spitfire pilot and war hero Ian Smith, the PM, leading Rhodesia as it declared independence in the hope of surviving as a functional nation
So, the UK, and eventually America under Civil Rights Carter and his friends like Andy Young, embargoed Rhodesia. It couldn't import fuel or weapons and so was slowly strangled by the West as communists funded and armed by the USSR and Red China murdered civilians in horrible ways as their form of "war"
Eventually Rhodesia fell, unable to survive without being able to import fuel or weapons and unable to export its cash crops.
Then the aforementioned horrors of Mugabe occurred, with the West covering for Mugabe and even congratulating him as he butchered his own people
That conduct matters, and it's largely the reason the West is no longer functional and, indeed, often abetting its own destruction by importing hordes of foreigners
It's no longer self-confident, and as such, no longer willing to stand for the traits that made it great
Egalitarianism did not make the West great. Social welfare did not make the West great. Hatred of white people did not make the West great. Degenerate culture and rotten entertainment did not make the West great
Social hierarchy and its wonderful fruits did
But, as shown by its rejection of Rhodesia, the West turned its back on those values. Rotted internally by Cultural Marxism and the Leninist grievance impulse, it destroyed them
Now, instead of moon landings, concertos, and palaces, "we" have brutalist architecture, rap music, and food stamps
Was that a good tradeoff? Was it worth it?
Or should we have sided with Rhodesia as it remained the last outpost of the Old World, beset by grievance politics of the sort now destroying us?
Oh, and I should have added this earlier, but also check out @k9_reaper to understand the similar events happening in South Africa, and check out this interview we did with him on the subject, in which we mention the Bush War: theamericantribune.news/p/surviving-so…
And credit to the intro pic from @thewardoll, from whose account I found it awhile ago
Make sure to read these superb books about the Bush War and Rhodesia:
While a great many failings are to blame, one of the earliest and most insidious issues lying at the root of Albion's immense decline is free trade, which destroyed England and her Empire
🧵👇
When the story of His Majesty's empire began, the reasons were clear:
England needed resources that potential colonies could provide. Cheap raw materials for its early manufactories, markets for those finished materials, an outlet for the surplus population, and existing wealth and geographic positioning to be exploited to the detriment of rivals
This mercantilist framing made sense for the home country, particularly the adventurers, industrialists, and capitalists within it who could make immense fortunes
Further, the framing was self-reinforcing
Protecting markets from external competitors while providing raw materials and ever-growing export markets for your finished goods made sense, and was generally positive
Manufactured goods could be cheaper, as markets were larger and raw materials less limited. Opportunites abounded for those who wanted to leave settled life, letting off steam from a long-settled society. National security-related sectors, from shipping to basing abroad, was advanced by having more reasons to and opportunities for shipping men and material abroad, watching and raiding rivals, and establishing forward bases
There were flaws, of course, but the system worked reasonably well for the Anglo world when paired with a focus on settlement
President Trump has indicated he wants tariffs on a grand scale, and that the McKinley presidency is his model for doing so
Why’s that important?
McKinley saved America with his responsible attitude and protection-minded tariffs, and Trump could do the same
🧵👇
The history of the McKinley tariffs is quite interesting. So far, my favorite book on his policies is In the Days of McKinley, but if you want a faster primer, @MTClassical has a superb show on the subject
In any case, the basic problem McKinley faced is this: decades of tight, gold standard monetary policy and relatively unprotective trade policies in the period between the War Between the States and 1890 meant significant deflation in goods prices, particularly commodities and those manufactured goods in which Europe had a head start
That general economic situation meant, broadly, that though things were getting significantly cheaper, workers were missing out on those gains because their employers had to cut wages to stay afloat
Farmers, meanwhile, were seeing themselves fall ever more behind the large corporate farms as the commodity prices of their crops fell and the debt they, in turn, needed was extremely expensive in a deflationary world
Justin HW Brands describes the farming issue particularly well in his book “Colossus”
Barbarism is the inability to think of and plan for tomorrow, much less past it
Civilization, then, is when men plant trees in the shade of which they will never sit, and greatness and success are measured by their doing so🧵👇
Think of what it takes to build the sort of structures we associate with the great civilizations
The Pyramids of Egypt
The Acropolis of Athens
The Flavian Amphitheater of Rome
Hagia Sophia
Notre Dame
What is similar about them? Legacy is the point. They take years to build, with the work often going on for decades and outlasting the life of he who started construction
But when finished their stone stands as a testament for all time to the builder. Like the Pantheon declaring M. Agrippa, he built this, or as we still know the road Censor Appius Claudius Caecus built as the Roman way, they are a legacy that lasts for millennia
And why did they build those structures?
In part it was legacy
But more than that it was what society demanded. In Rome they had the cursus honorum, and, Coriolanus aside, the way to advance along it was contributing to the public, particularly in the form of magnificent public works
Greece had taken the idea a step farther, even, and instead of having taxes had competition amongst great men to build the public works. If a bridge needed building, the great men would compete to donate a magnificent bridge to the public. If the gods needed honoring, it would be a great man who constructed the marble-bedecked temple. Even much of the Acropolis was built in this manner
And so on: monuments to eternity were built because the public demanded it
First, having foreigners invade you is actually a punishment levied for not obeying God...not a commandment of His
Deuteronomy 28:43-45 provides, "Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers. All these disasters will come on you, and they will be with you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and keep all the laws that he gave you."
If God was pro-Great Replacement, why would he make it happening a curse for forgetting his commands?
No, it's quite clear that mass migration is a punishment from God, a curse for forgetting his commandments...which would make sense given that generally atheistic in practice America and Europe are suffering the worse from this Biblical plague
South African President Ramaphosa signed off on a new South African Land-Expropriation Law
It allows for the expropriation of property by the state for the purposes of ethnic economic equity, meaning white property will be stolen
This is how Mugabe destroyed Rhodesia🧵👇
The new law replaces South Africa's Expropriation Act of 1975. Under it, the government is allowed to seize land in the name of "public interest."
And what does that mean? In addition to the normal preeminent domain reasons, per Section 25 of the Constitution, it means "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources."
In other words, the "public interest" is defined as racial economic equity, or the races getting "what they need"
It's just race communism
Further, under the law, if property is being held for the sole purpose of wanting it to increase in value, which is the case with most property due to inflation, the state can take it without paying any compensation
That's because what it means, letting the cream of society rise to the top, leads to huge outcome differentials to which egalitarian liberalism reacts with fury
In fact, it's why the West destroyed Rhodesia and won't tolerate this either🧵👇
The simple fact is there are differences in culture and capability that are generally attendant with ethnic differences. Those, in turn, result in differences in outcome
British doctor Theodor Dalrymple, describing how that played out in Rhodesia, where he worked, said:
“Unlike in South Africa, where salaries were paid according to a racial hierarchy, salaries in Rhodesia were equal for blacks and whites doing the same job, so that a black junior doctor received the same salary as mine. But there remained a vast gulf in our standards of living, the significance of which at first escaped me; but it was crucial in explaining the disasters that befell the newly independent countries that enjoyed what Byron called, and eagerly anticipated as, the first dance of freedom. “The young black doctors who earned the same salary as we whites could not achieve the same standard of living for a very simple reason: they had an immense number of social obligations to fulfill. They were expected to provide for an ever expanding circle of family members (some of whom may have invested in their education) and people from their village, tribe, and province. An income that allowed a white to live like a lord because of a lack of such obligations scarcely raised a black above the level of his family. Mere equality of salary, therefore, was quite insufficient to procure for them the standard of living that they saw the whites had and that it was only human nature for them to desire—and believe themselves entitled to, on account of the superior talent that had allowed them to raise themselves above their fellows. In fact, a salary a thousand times as great would hardly have been sufficient to procure it: for their social obligations increased pari passu with their incomes.
“These obligations also explain the fact, often disdainfully remarked upon by former colonials, that when Africans moved into the beautiful and well-appointed villas of their former colonial masters, the houses swiftly degenerated into a species of superior, more spacious slum. Just as African doctors were perfectly equal to their medical tasks, technically speaking, so the degeneration of colonial villas had nothing to do with the intellectual inability of Africans to maintain them. Rather, the fortunate inheritor of such a villa was soon overwhelmed by relatives and others who had a social claim upon him. They brought even their goats with them; and one goat can undo in an afternoon what it has taken decades to establish.”
This same thing played out in the Rhodesian voting system
To vote on the important "A" voter roll in national elections, you had to either A) have the modern equivalent of $60k USD in Rhodesian property, or B) be highly educated
Those requirements were the same for blacks and whites. It was "colorblind" and as much of a meritocracy as is possible without communist confiscation of everything
What happened with it was much the same as happened with wealth generally: whites did better at qualifying, and though many blacks were able to qualify, whites tended to do so at a much higher rate