Will Tanner Profile picture
Nov 11 15 tweets 7 min read Read on X
It's the 59th anniversary of Rhodesia's Independence from the British who were demanding their self-destruction in the name of mass democracy

But why did Rhodesia declare independence on the 11th of November, 1965?

Few actually seem to know, so it's time to explain in the 🧵👇 Image
Image
By 1965, Rhodesia had been independent from the British South Africa Company and self-governing for about 42 years

Over those four decades, it went from being unsettled, landlocked veldt into a hugely successful country, the country with the highest standard of living for blacks in the continentImage
Of course, Rhodesia didn't do that by singing kumbaya and embracing race communism

Rather, it avoided the apartheid of South Africa while also avoiding the communism of the East and mass liberal democracy of the West by embracing Western government circa 1830: propertied voting

For white and black alike, to vote on the A roll in the national elections, one had to have the modern equivalent of about $60,000 USD in Rhodesian property, such as a house, business, farm, etc.

In limiting the national franchise to such people, it screened out the incompetent, the wastrels, and so on, limiting stewardship of the nation to those who had shown their ability to earn or steward wealthImage
That was Rhodesia's limitation on then-modern Western government. There was freedom of speech, strong property rights, society-wide gun ownership, freedom of association, and so on. It was a free country

But the franchise was limited, so the egalitarian West despised it, and had for years

Particularly, America, then in the throes of the Civil Rights movement, and Britain, ruled by Harold Wilson the socialist, despised Rhodesia and wanted to destroy its form of governmentImage
That Western demand for Rhodesian destruction came from Britain's Harold Wilson and his demand for NIBMAR, or No Independence Before Majority Rule

Despite Rhodesia's lack of apartheid and color-blind application of voting qualification laws, he said that Rhodesia was racist because it limited the franchise to competent stewards of wealthImage
So, Wilson said that Britain wouldn't allow Rhodesia to become independent unless it went along with "majority rule," meaning one man, one vote, one time mass democracy

That was something the Rhodesians refused entirely to do because they saw it as essentially a demand for Rhodesia to destroy itselfImage
In thinking NIBMAR was a demand for self-destruction of the worst sort, the Rhodesians had a fair point

Particularly, they could look north to the former Belgian Congo, independent since 1961, which was utterly ravaged by internecine violence

Particularly, at that point, the Congo was undergoing the Simba Rebellion, in which drugged-up rebels r*ped, murdered, and looted their way across the former jewel of colonial Africa, turning much of the formerly beautiful colony into a charred wreck in the process. They were only stopped thanks to Mike Hoare and his mercenaries, as recounted in "Congo Mercenary"

Many Belgians fled from the Congo to Rhodesia, where they described how the end of European rule brought with it atrocities that would have shocked the worst torturers of the Spanish InquisitionImage
The Rhodesians, by 1965 led by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front party, decided that such a path was unacceptable

Though despised by, in '65, all except the Portuguese and South Africans, the Rhodesians decided to fight rather than give in to such horrors peacefully, so they declared independence and went to war with the communist rebels who desired their destructionImage
They declared independence with their November 11, 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the British

Their UDI was deemed illegal by the UN, and sanctions were passed that isolated Rhodesia and its cash crops from the world

England's House of Lords tried to stop Wilson the communist Labourite from destroying Rhodesia with sanctions, but thanks to Churchill and Lloyd George's 1911 Parliament Bill, their veto was only for a year and after that Wilson destroyed Rhodesia with glee, even sending the Royal Navy to blockade Biera and stop the Rhodesians from importing oilImage
What followed was a decade-and-a-half-long war in which the Rhodesians, outnumbered and attacked by the whole world, put up a valiant fight for independence and achieved great feats in a probably unwinnable war against the communist rebels

Sadly, they fell by 1979, in no small part thanks to Jimmy Carter and his friend Andy Young, two decidedly evil men despite their current reputationsImage
But while Rhodesia is now gone, its memory ought live on: it stands as a monument and memorial to the fight against global Zimbabweification, a fight against the communist-supported anarcho-tyranny that defines the present

RHODESIANS NEVER DIE! Image
And listen to the details about the egalitarian-driven roots of the West's betrayal and destruction of Rhodesia here, in which @Sargon_of_Akkad discusses my article for his Islander magazine on the subject:
@Sargon_of_Akkad Oh and the fellas @WBSApparel have rhodie short shorts! Check them out! Image
Image
@Sargon_of_Akkad @WBSApparel Make Zimbabwe Rhodesia Again! theamericantribunestore.com/products/make-…
@Sargon_of_Akkad @WBSApparel And here’s more about the important legacy of Rhodesia: theamericantribune.news/p/why-rhodesia…

• • •

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

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 13
The problem with monarchy is the "what about a bad king?" question, a major problem with "democracy," the proponents of which mean mass, liberal democracy, is that it allows a mob of ignoramuses to rule

The solution isn't technocracy, it's Rhodesian-style propertied voting🧵👇 Image
The general problem is that one-man rule has pitfalls related to the judgment of that individual, though it does at least ensure that there's responsibility and at least a reason to care about stewardship of the country

Mass democracy, on the other hand, means reliance on the mob's (almost always poor) judgment. Even if the mob eventually wakes up, as has happened across the West as of late, the problems created by mass democracy are often quite far along because there wasn't much of an impulse for sober judgment until things got quite bad

An example of that is the case in England, for example, where the Reform and Parliament Bill-enabled mob voted for prosperity-destroying Labourites, namely Attlee and Wilson, for years, and then only recently realized how poorly things are going. Now it might be too late for the country

The problem with technocracy, meanwhile, can be seen in American tariff policy. Industry-protecting tariffs were long tossed aside in favor of the "free trade"-style policies the technocrats wanted. Those, in a result that the technocrats cared not a bit about, resulted in a hollowing out of the American industrial base and the men who made it work. Now America can't produce naval vessels, is outproduced in simple military equipment like artillery shells by the Russians, and is seeing itself outdone by the Chinese in terms of not only ships, but also everything from drones to steel. Tariffs would have avoided a lot of that, but "the experts" were focused on short-term spreadsheet profit maximization rather than the long termImage
So, the problem becomes, how do you encourage screen for stewardship and weed out the incompetents who compose the mob while also keeping power out of the hands of either one man egg-head experts who don't know or care about results on the ground, for the people of the country?

Propertied voting of one sort or another seems like the best way to handle this. Power is in the hands of neither the mob nor "the experts" nor a singular king, but rather the competent people of the countryImage
Read 7 tweets
Nov 12
"We" have financialized every aspect of life in an effort to squeeze financial return from everything

Private equity is particularly notorious for this, buying everything from Little League sports teams to medical practices

The medical aspect is particularly worrisome🧵👇 Image
Take the above example, a report conducted by CBS. Dentistry IQ, summarizing the Private Equity problem and what the report found, noted:

"Private equity firms are also buying large dental chains, many of which are owned by individual dentists and specialists who offer implant procedures. According to PitchBook, Aspen Dental bought ClearChoice for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2020, Affordable Care (whose largest clinic brand is Affordable Dentures & Implants) was purchased for an estimated $2.7 billion in 2021, and the private equity wing of the Abu Dhabi government bought Dental Care Alliance for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2022.

"The American Dental Association (ADA) reported that private equity deals with dental practices increased ninefold from 2011 to 2021. There is also an additional interest in oral surgery, possibly due to how expensive implants can be.

...

"Lawsuits have been filed nationwide alleging that dentists at implant clinics have extracted patients' teeth unnecessarily, leaving patients with misaligned implants, or even unable to chew. Dentists who are heavily pushing for implants may be striving for lucrative income instead of the health of their patients.2

"Edwin Zinman, a San Francisco dental malpractice attorney and former periodontist, said: "They've sold a lot of [implants], and some of it unnecessarily, and too often done negligently, without having the dentists who are doing it have the necessary training and experience," Zinman said. "It's for five simple letters: M-O-N-E-Y."Image
It gets worse. The same general issue has come to medicine generally, with PE firms buying up hospitals just to raise costs and perform unnecessary procedures.
Such is what the American Journal of Medicine noted in a report titled “Private Equity and Medicine: A Marriage Made in Hell.” It provided:

Nearly every study reported in a recent meta-analysis found that PE acquisition led to higher prices. This has been documented in detail in anesthesia practices and in a combination of dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology practices. These latter studies documented “upcoding” such as seeing a higher percentage of visits claiming more than 30 minutes spent with the patient after PE takeovers. In addition, more new patients are seen and more fee-generating procedures are performed immediately after such takeovers. PE-backed management companies generated a major share of the out-of-network “surprise bills” that received considerable notoriety, as they have acquired major shares in such fields as emergency medicine, pathology, and anesthesiology, where patients do not have the ability to choose “in-network” physicians. Another way PE firms increase their ability to raise fees is by acquiring a dominant share of select specialties in a geographic area. PE firms are particularly attracted to procedure-oriented specialties such as dermatology, gastroenterology, and cardiology, where a few more procedures a week can make a big difference to “the bottom line.”

...

Why would PE firms invest in medical and dental practices, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and other health care entities? These firms typically seek to sell their acquired businesses in 3-5 years, aiming for at least a 50% profit. To do this, they must show sufficient revenue and profit growth to justify a higher sales price or increase the profitability of an entity they own to justify maintaining ownership. To do this, they must increase revenues and decrease operating costs. To achieve higher revenues, they will raise prices, increase the “productivity” of practitioners (ie, ask the physicians and others to see more patients), or seek a more lucrative mix of procedures. To lower costs they will seek lower-cost supplies; in a best case through forcing lower prices on currently used products, in a worst case by substituting inferior products. More often, because the major “cost” in a medical setting is the salaries of personnel, they will seek to substitute lower-paid staff: LPNs for RNs, minimally trained “medical assistants” for nurses.Image
Read 7 tweets
Nov 12
When was the last time that England and her glorious Empire could have been saved from becoming a decaying, socialist hell?

Many say, incorrectly, either WWI, when the empire was exhausted, or WWII when it was bankrupted

The real answer is 1911, with the Parliament Bill🧵👇 Image
The fight that led to the Parliament Bill began in 1909, with Winston Churchill's so-called People's Budget

By that point, Churchill had shifted to the Liberals from the Conservatives and was allied with Lloyd George to tax the landed elite into oblivion, despite his family being part of that elite.

The bill sparked a huge fight that culminated in England declaring war on its traditions and history in the name of socialismImage
The problem with the People's Budget was that it was the first overtly socialist law to come to England

In fact, it was entirely unprecedented and is known today as a "revolutionary concept" because it was expressly crafted to redistribute wealth, taxing landed wealth and income to fund welfare programs of the sort that have now bankrupted Britain

Because of its very nature, the bill was a shot across the bow of the landed elite, and fomented a great deal of social unrest and internal angerImage
Read 13 tweets
Nov 11
This made me laugh because it's so true, but it also made me think, what would a modern equivalent be?

There's the Somali pirate ship stock market, but I have a different idea:

A militarized REIT that resettles abandoned, anarchic cities like Detroit

A 🧵on how it'd work👇 Image
First, just think of the wasted capital in cities like Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc.

The reason for the abandonment makes sense: de-industrialization, the crack crisis, and lax policing make them about as dangerous and poor as Johannesburg

But it also means that whole swathes of essentially valueless neighborhoods exist in which the houses are still livable - there aren't trees growing through the living rooms or deer bedding in the bedrooms yet - but no one lives in them because crime, primarily, and the lack of jobs, to a lesser extent, made whole neighborhoods uninhabitable

Adding to the problem is that the cops are either corrupt, as in Chicago, or simply don't exist because they quit the forceImage
So far, that has just meant these cities are dying for want of residents who add value rather than subsit on crime or the dole

They can't afford the police they need, can't attract business, and can't raise debt to rebuild

But it doesn't have to be that way...as Detroit's Greek Town area shows, there's a space for heavily defended areas that attract valuable guests, businesses and residents, and can be successful so long as the crackheads and gangsters are chased away by men with riflesImage
Read 13 tweets
Nov 7
Trump won, which is fabulous

But the problem for America is that its full of people who praise the Soviets, a regime that murdered 10 million Christians 9the reason for the praise)

You can't have a country with that cancer in it, but America has solved this problem before🧵👇 Image
This is, I think, one of America's big problems

About a quarter of the country (half of Dems) supported not just locking you in a concentration camp for refusing to be part of a science experiment, but also wanted to take your children from you for not making them part of it, and imprison you for criticizing it

What is that but a modern variation of Stalin starving millions of Ukrainian and Russian Christians to death and sending millions more to the gulags?

I suspect the responses would be similar if you asked about "racism"Image
Image
Surrounding all that are outright overtones of violence

They send Antifa and BLM to riot, have the FBI arrest their political enemies (which it does willingly enough), and post online about "punching Nazis" (assaulting Trump supporters) and assaulting men for voting Trump

You can bet there's a great deal of overlap between the "imprison you and take your kids for refusing the jab" and the "assault normal guys for not voting for the gay race communist" crowds. They're probably the exact same groupsImage
Read 14 tweets
Nov 6
If Trump's to do anything, he'll have to actually take on the Deep State and Drain the Swamp

Could he do so?

It will certainly be a fight, but if Andrew Jackson could defeat Biddle and the Second Bank of the US, Trump can defeat the Deep State

Here's 5 ways how he could🧵👇 Image
First, the Jackson and the Second Bank of the US comparison is, I think, important and worth remembering as a guide to action

Nicholas Biddle, who directed the bank, retracted loans and crashed the economy in an attempt to get Americans to look at Jackson as the reason for their economic woes and demand protection of the bank

It didn't work. Jackson, known for his populist bent, kept the American people on his side. His successor, Van Buren, did the same, using infrastructure projects and deregulation to gradually overcome Biddle's economic crash. This policy of Van Buren's eventually turned into massive railroad expansion, economic expansion, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution via increased production of things like pig iron and general American prosperity.

In short, the spat and Biddle-caused crash was long-lasting, spanning multiple administrations, and it was overcome with policies that built on Jacksonian strengths; empowering the people through deregulation and creating, through infrastructure, and environment in which success was more possible despite banking shenanigans

By the end, the bank was defeated and American prosperity intactImage
That's relevant to Trump. Much as Biddle caused a crash in a desperate attempt to protect the Swamp of that day, the Bank of the US, the Deep State of our day will pull any trick possible, not excluding an economic crash, to protect itself

So, how to overcome it? Do what Jackson and Van Buren did - continually call out the real cause of the crash and social woes, Deep State malfeasance, all while hacking away at the Deep State responsible for that malfeasance and empowering normal people to succeed where it has retreated, or where new opportunities have opened up because it has been hacked awayImage
Image
Read 10 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!

:(