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:
The current argument for H-1b expansion is just the illegal immigration argument applied to office work, and is what happened during the Gilded Age, to America's great misfortune
A short 🧵👇
That is incorrect in white-collar work and in the blue-collar work ravaged by decades of mass migration into America.
What is undoubtedly true is that Third World imports can and will work for far less than Americans, and often in far worse conditions...
Well, that and, as @loganclarkhall pointed out, the groups prioritized for H-1b economic migration tend to vote blue (Indians, for example, went for Kamala 70-30)
That's why they're wanted. It's not that Americans won't do the jobs
We have a ton of very talented software engineers, computer scientists, and so on...many of them can't get jobs, even coming from some of the top technical schools
But, those talented Americans are generally white men. Not only do they expect and deserve higher salaries and reasonable hours, but companies are effectively punished for hiring them because of DEI and affirmative action rules
At the point where the best Americans aren't getting jobs in a field...you don't need more immigrants to replace them, which is what the
Why is it that leftists are always so opposed to pedos facing any sort of justice for their abuse of kids? It's not that they're all pedos, which is the usual answer
No, it's Bioleninism, the idea that nature's worst should rule, the dominating ideology of the present 🧵👇
That's not to say many of them aren't pedos, that's certainly the case. But it's not the whole situation, not why it's allowed
Take the case below: some transgender weirdo buying a child through surrogacy so that he can play mom.
Why would the regime allow this shocking, dangerous behavior to happen? It's because they want a loyal class of followers - an army of jannissaries - who will be ruthlessly loyal to this regime because it's the only one that'll allow them to act out their worst and most degenerate impulses.
No other regime would allow this. It's too sick, too weird, too morally wrong. But that's not really the point. Ours doesn't care about morality. It does care about having soldiers in its war on nature.
So, the allowance of anti-social behavior, and indeed the glorification of awful impulses, is how the regime builds its follower base
By waging a war on nature, or at least creating a legal framework allowing others to do so, it creates a class of people whose only shred of legitimacy in their behavior, behavior to which they're quite committed because it is their "identity."
Thus, they're loyal to it, and will be till the end, because they and their existence is wrapped up in the continuation of a war on nature that, given its inherent instability, requires ever more effort and manpower to keep going
This is undoubtedly accurate, but I don't see much recognition of why it's the case
Democracy, by its nature, empowers bureaucracy
This is the opposite of rule by gentlemen, and it's what has led us quite quickly to the hell of bureaucratic tyranny
I'll explain in the 🧵👇
It all comes down to incentives, and the fact that there are two basic types of on-the-ground governance, whatever the highest form of government is:
One is local lords, or gentry. This is when the big landowner(s) in a given area, generally a town or county, handles the administration of it. This is generally the traditional form of government, hence the title "count" and unit "county," though barons also filled this role.
The other is bureaucracy of one sort another. This is when appointed government officials have a grant of power to rule over a certain aspect of life in the aforementioned administrative unit. This is the Parks and Rec form of government, where various forms of petty individuals are put in charge to regulate some aspect of life in that area
Importantly, most forms of national government can use either form of local administration
Kings are best known for having nobles under them, this is the count-->duke--->king form of county and region administration that is famous. But the Byzantines were known for their bureaucracy, at certain points (they also had a dux form of administration), as were the Chinese emperors. Similarly, the Prussians had their junkers, but those were gradually replaced by the famous Prussian bureaucracy
And while Republics like the French and American Republics are best known for their bureaucracies, the pre-Lincoln American Republic was long largely ruled and administered at the local level by the large landowners. The Virginia gentry, Southern plantation owners, and New York baronial estate owners were long in charge of state government, state representation in the national government, and county administration. It is of the "county" that all the characters in Gone with the Wind speak at the beginning, for example, and it is they at the barbeque who ruled that county
Do people really not know about primogeniture and entail?
The reason for this is that the Anglosphere continued operating on that concept into the 20th century, even when not legally required: the land was kept intact to keep with the title at each generation
Generally this was the eldest surviving son, but it could go to a cousin, as happens in Downton Abbey, if that person is the one in line for the title
But the actual legal mechanism by which land was tied together and passed down was somewhat different, as primogeniture as a requirement ended over the 18th and early 19th centuries
The legal process of this was called entail, which existed far longer than primogeniture as a law
Under it, the land was "entailed" to the title, and generally couldn't be sold, so as the title was inherited the estate was too; farms in the estate were gradually amalgamated into the most efficient size, around 300ish acres, and because they were owned by the estate owner rather than the farmer they weren't divided up upon the farmer's death, instead generally going to his firstborn son
Generally, this operated as something of a generation-skipping trust; when a grandson was born, he would sign an agreement with the grandfather about the terms of the handoff. This generally was maintaining the entail for the estate. Thus, for at least three generations it would be locked up in the estate; when the grandfather established his will around the grandson, that involved the grandson creating his will with the entail provisions
Sometimes, it wasn't generation-skipping, and the entail was just renewed each generation. Regardless, the effect was the same
Why's he so angry? Because this is a Trump-sparked, quiet reversal of the civilization-obliterating DEI mindset that has been pushing America toward South Africanization
We'll now see if this is a bump on a dark path to bloody South African egalitarianism or a real reversal🧵👇
The degree to which DEI, the polite name for race communism, leads to perdition can't be overstated
And though South Africa's descent is highly relevant, really it's Zimbabwe that best emphasizes the ends of that mindset
It was best reflected when Mugabe said, "The only white man you can trust is a dead white man... our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy... the white man is not indigenous to Africa."
He proceeded to expropriate the white-owned farms and chase the white farmers out of the country. The result of that race communist tyranny was not just horror and murder for the whites, but starvation and hyperinflation for the blacks he claimed to be aiding
But while Mugabe is the best example, the same mindset is present elsewhere
Take the below clip of EFF leaders Julius Malema, a race communist radical even for South Africa, saying, "The revolution will require us to kill" while calling for Mugabe-style land expropriation
He's the same one known for chanting the genocidal "Kill the Boer" song
Buffett is portrayed as being virtuous for this "I never wanted to found a dynasty" attitude but it's actually quite anti-civilizational, and is the opposite of how the men who built the West thought
The thing is, it's only dynastic thinking that leads to lont-term thinking🧵👇
This is, frankly, the difference between a Lord and a modern CEO:
One cares about what will be happening 6 quarters from now, if he thinks even that far ahead. The other thinks six generations from now, as it is his duty to do so
While Buffett is undoubtedly a longer-term thinker than most of his peer group, he still faces the modern problem of assuming that what is most moral is for things to be (mostly) reset at each generation. He (and many others like him) see inheritance of a vast fortune as wrong because it is "unearned"
So, instead of keeping the fortune intact so that it can be used for great ends, it's wasted away on vague "philanthropy" that does little, in the end, to actually help anyone, at least compared to what could be done with a vast estate
At least Buffett isn't a "die with zero," type who wants to spend everything
But, still, his flaw in thinking about wealth is that it prevents anything substantial from being built over time
So, whereas in the past projects could be multi-generational, whether it was the building and maintenance of a grand estate or the turning of a bank like JP Morgan into an immensely powerful, influential behemoth, now they can't be. Instead, whatever was intended to be accomplished has to be accomplished in essentially the prime of life, or it will fail for lack of time, as the next generation can't be get involved
While this is bad enough in the case of Buffett, who at least managed to build an interesting business that might survive him, it's even worse in the case of people who did little that will survive, instead only accumulating money. The trend of celebrities announcing their kids won't inherit anything of note is such an example. That means nothing real will ever be accomplished. Whatever charity gets the money will either waste it or never spend it, limiting its usefulness, and what could have been the start of a multi-generational ascent to greatness is instead over before it ever began