He just died so we're supposed to pretend he's a saint, but Carter was instrumental in killing the free, prosperous state of Rhodesia and aiding Mugabe in his takeover of it, then transforming it into hellish Zimbabwe
In fact, after Harold Wilson, Carter's the key villain🧵👇
I've written much about this before, but a quick summary to set the scene:
Carter was elected in '76 and acceded to power in '77. This coincided with the Bush War taking its final, much more intense form, with Soviet and CCP-backed rebels infiltrating from Zambia and Mozambique, which the Portuguese had lost in '75 after the '74 Carnation Revolution
The Rhodesian Front government, still generally supported by most blacks and whites within the country, was fighting for its life against those communist rebels and in desperate need of Western aid to survive. Its survival would have mean a bulwark against the communists in one of the world's key regions.
It needed that aid because the South Africans had generally stopped helping, as they sensed which way the wind was blowing and sought detente in their region with the black communist governments, and thought throwing Rhodesia to the wolves would buy them some time. Meanwhile, the whole world other than South Africa and Israel had gone along with UN sanctions of Rhodesia, cutting it off from needed trade and access to supplies
So, with the South Africans betraying them, the British unhelpful, and the communists surrounding them, the Rhodesians desperately needed American aid
In a sane world, it would have been given. Rhodesia was free, with personal and property rights generally protected and respected for white and black alike. It was willing to fight communism and, at the point of Carter's election, had already done so for a decade. It could feed Africa and had vast mineral reserves. So, it was just the sort of state you would think America would want to aid in the Cold War, and help defend from communism
That aid was given by some Americans personally, such as Soldier of Fortune's Robert Brown, and some Americans arrived to fight as volunteers...but it was left to see if Carter would let Rhodesia fall to the communists, or provide the little bit of aid and sanctions relief it needed to keep fighting
Carter didn't give it. Despite being a Southern Democrat, he was in thrall to the race communist spirit of the age, one best represented by his friend and fellow Georgian, "Civil Rights leader" Andy Young
Young, America’s UN Ambassador from January 1977 to September '79, was known for being “lenient toward communist tyranny.” He took the lead on US policy toward Rhodesia, and remained unremittingly hostile to the country as it fought for survival against communist aggression, not only maintaining sanctions on it but providing much moral aid to communist rebels like Mugabe and Nkomo
That Young-led American support for communist rebels continued even as they committed horrid atrocities
For example, in '79, Nkomo's USSR-aided rebels, after years of torturing and killing black villagers, shot down two Rhodesian civilian airliners. When the planes crashed, his men r*ped the survivors and then bayoneted them to death. After the planes were shot down and survivors deliberately tortured and murdered, Young described Nkomo as “conciliatory" toward the Rhodesians.
Young even kept up the support of Mugabe to the point of refusing to let the Rhodesians find a negotiated political end to the war
When moderate African Bishop Abel Muzorewa was elected in the 1979 election in what was described as "undeniably mobilized a genuine outpouring of sentiment for peace among black Rhodesians," Young smeared it as an election of a “neofascist." He then, with Carter's blessing and support, pushed for an end of such conciliatory measures and demanded an election in which Mugabe or Nkomo could be elected
So, under Carter's watch, in the last year of his presidency, Young then supported Mugabe in the 1980 election, which was characterized by Mugabe’s men intimidating voters. Lord Christopher Soames, charged by the British with overseeing the election, found that "the scale of intimidation in eastern Rhodesia [bordering Mozambique, which had sheltered Mugabe's ZANU guerrillas] was massive. . . . The mere presence of Mugabe's guerrillas in the villages was enough to deter the local population from showing support for any party other than ZANU."
Young didn't care about the voter intimidation, nor the torture and killing of black Rhodesians. Instead, he stuck by Mugabe, again with Carter's blessing.
Even as Mugabe described a multi-party state as a "luxury" he would end, Young praised him, saying, "I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible.”
For reference, Young's support for Mugabe (and Carter's friendship with Young) continued past Carter's presidency
He even defended Mugabe as he murdered and stole the farms of Rhodesia's white farmers. Young defended the “land reform,” saying, “President Mugabe is doing much better to manage this situation than the British government is doing managing Ireland.” He then hand-waved away the murder that occurred, saying, "I think it was in the tradition of civil disobedience, but unfortunately the hostilities between the veterans and the land owners was rather volatile and people were killed."
Young has continued to support Mugabe in recent years. In 2008, The New Republic quoted him as lying and ridiculously claiming that Mugabe doesn’t steal, leading that outlet to say, “Young, with the soft voice and the doe eyes, long ago turned into a cash carnivore, fronting for Africa's tyrants in corporate board rooms and congressional offices.”39 It added, “Well, he does steal, and from his own people. And he maims and murders them, too.”
So, as a free nation tried fighting communist tyranny, Carter sent the Civil Rights hounds after it and let them destroy it in the name of race communism, supporting murderous rebels in the name of "democracy" even as they butchered civilians in unspeakable atrocities and intimidated voters
He and his friend Andy Young then continued supporting Mugabe even as he genocided the Ndebele, stole land and other property from the remaining whites, and killed them as "land reform"
So, unless you support the murderous Robert Mugabe and his campaign of terror-filled race communism, there's no reason to support Jimmy Carter
He's a villain who enabled, supported, and provided moral cover for the worst sort of tyranny and villainy, consigning millions to horrid fates
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