Will Tanner Profile picture
Jul 23 β€’ 24 tweets β€’ 9 min read β€’ Read on X
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 πŸ§΅πŸ‘‡ Image
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 tobaccoImage
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 Image
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 tooImage
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 Image
Particularly, it wanted to destroy the twin concepts of natural hierarchy and cultural achievement Image
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 Image
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.Image
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 Image
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
Image
Image
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 Image
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 subjectsImage
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 Image
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 Image
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"Image
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 Image
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
Image
Image
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 themImage
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?Image
Image
Read more about the West's war on Rhodesia here:
theamericantribune.news/p/how-the-unit…
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:

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with Will Tanner

Will Tanner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Will_Tanner_1

Nov 24
This view is quite common, and those holding it often feel justified since they see earned wealth as theirs to be spent, not stewarded

But this is the opposite of how we though when the West was great

The lives of George Washington and Andrew Jackson show a far better viewπŸ§΅πŸ‘‡ Image
For context, the above exchange had to do with whether it is better to help children succeed and pass them wealth, or go on a pro-Israel cruise and be "entitled to enjoy" spending down the principal

To some extent that's reasonable, particularly after a long life of working

But, according to the Western mindset that pretty much every great man of the pre-World War I period held, importantly for this thread the Tidewater Gentry like George Washington and new men like Andrew Jackson, wealth isn't meant to be spent

Perhaps most of the income that can be generated on the principal can be, under that mindset, but the wealth itself shouldn't be. That's how one goes broke first slowly then suddenly, and is generally a good way to fade into oblivion

Instead, wealth, when earned or inherited, is meant to be stewarded not just for the next generation, but for the many next generations down the lineImage
George Washington is great example of this mindset, and the biography Douglas Southall Freeman wrote of him tells the story well (the abridged Washington version is sufficient)

George Washington's family in the new world was founded by John Washington, son of a rector in Essex, and so no one particularly wealthy from birth, at least compared to the gentry and aristocracy. John Washington arrived in Virginia and soon started accumulating acreage by working hard and managing it prudently

So, because John accumulated and didn't spend it all in an orgy of consumption, his son, Lawrence Washington, was able to inherit both the Mattox Creek plantation (1,850 acres) and Little Hunting Creek (2,500 acres). The latter became Mount Vernon a few generations down the road

Lawrence had two sons, included amongst whom was his second son, Augustine Washington. He inherited about 1,000 acres on Bridges Creek, and came into more through Jane Butler, an orphan, who had inherited about 640 acres. Augustine went on to buy a great deal more land in his lifetime, always accumulating

One of Augustine's 10 children was George Washington, who, as an 11-year-old, inherited only the relatively small 150-acre Strother farm now known as Ferry Farm upon his father's death. George was supported in his adolescence and career by his brother Lawrence, who inherited the Mount Vernon plantion, which eventually came to Washington after the death of Lawrence and his widow. George worked as a surveyor as a young man, managing to accumulate 2,315 acres by 1752.

George Washington came into a great deal more landed wealth through his marriage to Martha, a Custis, who had a 1/3 dower interest in 18,000 acres. Over the next decade, Washington won access to, through purchase and rewards for military service, over 40k acres in the West and doubled the size of the Mt. Vernon plantation to 6500 acres. By the time he died, Washington owned 65,000 acres of land.

But landed wealth wasn't all. In addition to the chattel slaves, he owned everything from a fishing fleet to a grain mill. He prudently switched from tobacco to wheat early on, avoiding the usual trap of Virginia planters, and generally invested in business activities outside of agriculture. In doing so, he followed in the footsteps of his father Augustine, an early colonial iron forge entrepreneur.

All that was quite lucrative, though never managed at its best due to Washington's lifetime of service to his country, and one study estimates that his peak net worth was $587 million, including 300 slavesImage
Read 13 tweets
Nov 23
This is extremely funny because it's accidentally a near-perfect encapsulation of why mass democracy always fails

But it's also not a good argument for technocracy. Rather, it shows the wisdom of Rhodesia-style propertied voting or aristocracy

I'll explain inπŸ§΅πŸ‘‡ Image
So, first off, the democratic angle

What the cartoon essentially shows is people voting on overthrowing the pilot simply because they showed up and paid a nominal fee to get on the plane. There's no qualification, no indication they know how to fly, etc.

So, the pilots are attempting to steer the plane and just get to the next airport, theoretically doing a competent job, while the passengers get in a huff and bicker about a subject they know nothing about

It sounds a lot like welfare recipients voting to raise taxes, Chickenhawks starting wars, etc. Such tends to end quite poorly: ignorance and libertinism rarely go well togetherImage
But it's also not really an argument for technocracy

Germanwings Flight 9525 (intentionally crashed into a mountain) is a good example: what if the pilot, the expert technocrat that should be listened to and the people ignored, is suicidal or otherwise deranged and will crash the plane/a technocratic society

Europe, particularly the EU-committed states, show this well. The Germans are blowing up nuclear plants and are overrun with parasitic, violent Islamists, and the reasons given are always "trust the experts to save the environment, save the pensions with new taxpayers, etc."

The experts don't have the nation's best interests at heart. They want to crash it. And so there are situations where the hand-raisers have a point, and someone else needs to fly the planeImage
Read 11 tweets
Nov 22
"Barbour Nationalism" has taken off for describing the aesthetic and motivation of the English farmer protest, and resistance to the Professional Managerial Class

The term's perfect in what it represents and describes, and it connects to the country's fox-hunting tradition
πŸ§΅πŸ‘‡ Image
From what I gather, it started with this great post from the always fantastic @kunley_drukpa, as a comment about Jeremy Clarkson's involvement in the protest against Starmer's odious, family farm-destroying death tax, and the sort of person who showed up
And that really is a perfect place to begin, as it's a certain sort of person who has stood up to Starmer in this, and very much the other sort of person who has sided with Starmer and the pro-tax regime

On Starmer's side are, to put it simply, the spiteful mutants. This mainly includes the sort of envious wretches who write abominable articles and tweets like that below, but it is also supported by groups like the Islamists who despise the native population.Image
Read 9 tweets
Nov 22
Starmer's just telling everyone what the new death tax on family farms is really about, redistributing land from English farmers to BlackRock

Interestingly, this indicates the "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" agenda is real and present regime policy, hence the new taxπŸ§΅πŸ‘‡Image
Interestingly, fury over the whole "you will own nothing and be happy" campaign has died down, probably because it has stayed out of the news

But the impulse is still there, as shown by the new, 20% death tax on farmland in England, and desire around the globe, amongst a similar set, for such taxes.Image
You can see this in the rhetoric

They never say, "It's a good thing that English families have farmed the same patch of land for half a millennium, rented or owned. It connects them to the land and traditions of our country."

No, that's what a sane, loving leader would say. Not the cosmopolitan elite that runs everything in the West right now, with the small exception of El Salvador and probably America under Trump

Instead, they engage in Mugabe-style rhetoric about how the farmers who love the countryside and are tied to its people, traditions, and culture are "hoarding" the land and need to give it up so that more migrants can be crammed into apartment buildings.Image
Read 16 tweets
Nov 21
I have written a great deal about Rhodesia's descent into Zimbabwe and the warnings it holds for us

However, the sad fact is that England's disastrous 20th Century history shows what property expropriation will really look like in the modern West

I'll explain in the πŸ§΅πŸ‘‡ Image
Image
Remember, before the turn of the century, and really 1910, at that, taxes were generally indirect and quite low in even England, now known for high taxes and regulation

Even after Churchill's People's Budget, taxes stayed comparatively low until World War I. AJP Taylor, describing the era, wrote:

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly Β£200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. … broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.Image
But then came World War I, and the dramatically higher taxes on inheritance and income passed to fund the war and enabled by Churchill's People's Budget and Lloyd George's Parliament Bill

More details on that here:
Read 16 tweets
Nov 20
The Founding Gentlemen: The American Gentry and the Founding of the Nation

A more interesting aspect of America's founding is that many of those integral to getting the country started weren't normal people

Rather, they were gentlemen - the gentry of the New World

πŸ§΅πŸ‘‡Image
This is clearest in the case of the Tidewater gentry - the planters of the cavalier Old Dominion

They saw it as their duty to serve their fledgling country. They foxhunted, drank copious amounts of port and claret, ran landed estates like those in England, and were often familiar with military service on horseback.

This contingent included:

James Monroe: an officer, diplomat, and president

James Madison: Congressman, creator of the Constitution, Federalist Papers writer, Secretary of State, President

"Light Horse Harry" Lee (Henry Lee III): An Anglo-Norman cavalry officer in the Revolution, he went on to aid in ratifying the Constitution and served as Governor of Virginia

George Mason IV: A descendant of a cavalier who fled to Virginia, Mason organized a pre-Revolution militia that proved crucial when the war began, served as a leading member of the Continental Congress, and is considered the Father of the Bill of Rights because of the Virginia Declaration of Rights he crafted

Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence writer, wartime Governor of Virginia, diplomat, President, solver of the Barbary Pirate problem

George Washington: Commander of the Continental Army, president-general of the Constitutional Convention, first presidentImage
But while the Tidewater planters, who self-consciously imitated the English Gentry and their cavalier ancestors, are the most notable of the gentlemen involved with the Founding and early republic period, there were a great deal more gentlemen from the North and South involved

For example, New York's "Lord Stirling," William Alexander. Heir of the Earl of Stirling, a Scottish Lord, Stirling inherited an immense fortune that he used to build a grand estate in New Jersey, on which he brought wine-making to the US by cultivating thousands of grape vines. During the early Revolutionary War period, Stirling was integral to building the patriot cause. He not only rallied volunteers, but even outfitted an entire regiment at his own expsense.

Similarly, Francis Marion, the infamous "Swamp Fox," was a planter from the Carolinas who managed to butcher British regulars and chase Cornwallis north in a series of over a dozen major battles and skirmishes, leading to the eventual war-winning battle of YorktownImage
Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(