The real question is "why?" Why would the Cold War West ally with...
Will Tanner@Will_Tanner_1
28 views
Jan 18, 2025
~3 min read
Advertisement
1
The real question is "why?" Why would the Cold War West ally with the communists to destroy a thriving republic in Southern Africa?
It makes no sense, at first glance, particularly given the resources at stake
But it makes a bit more sense upon close inspection 🧵👇
It makes no sense, at first glance, particularly given the resources at stake
But it makes a bit more sense upon close inspection 🧵👇
Will Tanner@Will_Tanner_1
Meanwhile, it was very clearly a war against communism
Both Mugabe and Nkomo were backed by the communist bloc, collaborated with the commies in Zambia and Mozambique, and pushed communist doctrine
In siding with them, America and England were, as I've said before, allying with the communists to destroy a functional state in Africa, one of the very few
Both Mugabe and Nkomo were backed by the communist bloc, collaborated with the commies in Zambia and Mozambique, and pushed communist doctrine
In siding with them, America and England were, as I've said before, allying with the communists to destroy a functional state in Africa, one of the very few
2
Remember, Rhodesia had no apartheid system. It simply had propertied voting, and if they had the requisite amount of property, white and black alike could vote
So it wasn't a "racist" country, wasn't communist, wasn't a dictatorship. It was just an Anglo country with a pre-Reform style voting system in South Africa
So it wasn't a "racist" country, wasn't communist, wasn't a dictatorship. It was just an Anglo country with a pre-Reform style voting system in South Africa
3
Beyond that, it was highly successful
It was the breadbasket of Africa.
It had a thriving industrial sector.
It was at the forefront of agricultural science (regenerative agriculture of the sort those like @untappedgrowth now follow was developed by Selous Scout founder Alan Savory
It was quite free
It was the breadbasket of Africa.
It had a thriving industrial sector.
It was at the forefront of agricultural science (regenerative agriculture of the sort those like @untappedgrowth now follow was developed by Selous Scout founder Alan Savory
It was quite free
4
But then the US and UK allied with the USSR and Red China to destroy it.
One of the Royal Navy's last great gasps was trying to blockade the port of Beira, Mozambique, to cut off Rhodesia's supply of oil
The US, particularly commie-friendly Andy Young, waged moral war on Rhodesia, falsely labeling an apartheid-style, "racist" country. Ian Smith, meanwhile, had great relationships with the tribal chiefs and blacks fought in large numbers for the Rhodesian militart
Both the US and UK let sanctions against Rhodesia pass the UN. These were the first sanctions in UN history and were mandatory; member states had to enforce them, and all but Israel, Portugal, and South Africa did so
One of the Royal Navy's last great gasps was trying to blockade the port of Beira, Mozambique, to cut off Rhodesia's supply of oil
The US, particularly commie-friendly Andy Young, waged moral war on Rhodesia, falsely labeling an apartheid-style, "racist" country. Ian Smith, meanwhile, had great relationships with the tribal chiefs and blacks fought in large numbers for the Rhodesian militart
Both the US and UK let sanctions against Rhodesia pass the UN. These were the first sanctions in UN history and were mandatory; member states had to enforce them, and all but Israel, Portugal, and South Africa did so
5
So, why?
The answer, I think, is egalitarianism and "democracy." That's why the West participated in Rhodesia's destruction
Rhodesia, in remaining one of the only stable and prosperous countries in Africa, showed that a propertied voting republic worked far better than "mass democracy" in Africa, where it inevitably turned into one man, one vote, one time-style dictatorship
Similarly, in having better white-black race relations than America and avoiding apartheid like South Africa or race-based slaughter like the Congo, it showed that letting the cream of the crop societally have a hand in government made it more stable and less hate-filled than "democracy," where ethnic divisions inevitably turn into voting fault lines
The answer, I think, is egalitarianism and "democracy." That's why the West participated in Rhodesia's destruction
Rhodesia, in remaining one of the only stable and prosperous countries in Africa, showed that a propertied voting republic worked far better than "mass democracy" in Africa, where it inevitably turned into one man, one vote, one time-style dictatorship
Similarly, in having better white-black race relations than America and avoiding apartheid like South Africa or race-based slaughter like the Congo, it showed that letting the cream of the crop societally have a hand in government made it more stable and less hate-filled than "democracy," where ethnic divisions inevitably turn into voting fault lines
6
It's no surprise that that stakeholder-only voting system, where those with a hand in government, had skin in the game, worked better than mass democracy in multiethnic societies.
As a reminder, Lee Kuan Yew noted, “Multiculturalism will destroy America. There is a danger that large numbers of Mexicans and others from South and Central America will continue to come to the US and spread their culture across the whole of the country. If they breed faster than the WASPs [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] and are living with them, whose culture will prevail? . . . It would be sad for American culture to be changed even partially.”
As a reminder, Lee Kuan Yew noted, “Multiculturalism will destroy America. There is a danger that large numbers of Mexicans and others from South and Central America will continue to come to the US and spread their culture across the whole of the country. If they breed faster than the WASPs [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] and are living with them, whose culture will prevail? . . . It would be sad for American culture to be changed even partially.”
7
So, Rhodesia humiliated the "democratic" present by its mere success and existence. It showed that mass democracy, the modern system, works far worse than the landed voting of days past
Take England. There, socialist PM Harold Wilson rammed through sanctions and the House of Lords tried to veto them. Because of Churchill and Lloyd George in 1911, they couldn't do so forever
But the Lords tried resisting democracy's attempt to destroy Rhodesia, as the Lords knew just how bad democracy is
Take England. There, socialist PM Harold Wilson rammed through sanctions and the House of Lords tried to veto them. Because of Churchill and Lloyd George in 1911, they couldn't do so forever
But the Lords tried resisting democracy's attempt to destroy Rhodesia, as the Lords knew just how bad democracy is
8
So, because it was humiliated by Rhodesia's existence and success, the democratic West sided with the communists to destroy Rhodesia
The result has been crime, famine, hyperinflation, genocide, and land expropriation by a dictatorial government
But no longer does the little republic humiliate the self-conscious and declining West, so those who destroyed it are quite happy
The result has been crime, famine, hyperinflation, genocide, and land expropriation by a dictatorial government
But no longer does the little republic humiliate the self-conscious and declining West, so those who destroyed it are quite happy
9
Read about Rhodesia here: theamericantribune.news/p/why-rhodesia…
