"...Rhodesia... I don’t want to write about the same subject time after time, as I know that gets boring"
I have a very high boredom threshold for your writing on Rhodesia (I certainly haven't hit it yet). Any time you think you have even a minor new point on that country, I'm very happy to read it, even if it requires repetition of other material, and I hope your other readers think likewise.
I agree with you entirely that Rhodesia is a crucial part of the puzzle if we want to understand that the sides in the Cold War didn't line up in quite the way people imagine, and this, in turn, is crucial to our understanding of how we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of civilizational collapse.
The obvious comparison with Mamdani is the Mayor of London, Sir (!) Sadiq Khan, who has caused immense damage, and is well on the way to ensuring that he has a new electorate that will never fail him.
Even so, the public profile that Khan has promoted is actually much more moderate than Mamdani - Khan is not overtly supportive of Hamas, and doesn't present himself as a socialist. I don't mean that I'm taken in by Khan's carefully constructed persona, but it is noteworthy that Mamdani doesn't even feel the need to do this. Yes, Mamdani has grudgingly walked back some of the points he previously liked to make for the sake of the election, but even that still leaves him far more overtly leftist and Islamist than Khan.
On the other hand, Mamdani has to operate under Trump, whereas Khan has had plain sailing, both under his own Labour Party, and previously under the equally globalist "Conservative" Party.
The level of violence to property and persons in NYC is also still much lower than in the NYC of the 70s and 80s (our host wrote a fine piece on this recently: "When the Radical Left Murdered Dozens and Bombed Thousands in the Name of Communist Revolution") - and we survived that. The mayor for much of the period was Ed Koch, who would have been astounded at the things Mamdani can not only say out loud, but which gain him more votes.
[Will, if you happen to be reading this, there's a new book on the subject of 70s terrorism: "The Revolutionists: The Story of the Extremists Who Hijacked the 1970s", by Jason Burke. The coverage is tilted towards the Middle East and Europe, so it doesn't overlap too much on the ground you covered yourself in your September 12 piece. Burke's CV as a journalist places him firmly within the legacy-media establishment, so I had my doubts. The section made available for free on Amazon is all I've read so far, and although I can tell that he is not a vigorously anti-communist reactionary like your good self (or me), there is nothing obnoxious so far. Burke clearly has a talent for constructing an engaging narrative from the known facts, so on this count alone, the book probably merits reading. If you'd consider this for a review at some point, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts (I don't have professional expertise in the area, but I do have some "uncommon knowledge" concerning the Soviet role). I don't know how your budget works for reviews, but if you have PayPal, I don't mind covering the cost of the book.
Thank you for this useful post. I was observing Rhodesian affairs from Australia in the 1960s and 70s and what you say is totally consistent with my recollections from the time.
Despite the Cold War over those decades, the Soviet and American governments were united in their opposition to Rhodesia.
"...Rhodesia... I don’t want to write about the same subject time after time, as I know that gets boring"
I have a very high boredom threshold for your writing on Rhodesia (I certainly haven't hit it yet). Any time you think you have even a minor new point on that country, I'm very happy to read it, even if it requires repetition of other material, and I hope your other readers think likewise.
I agree with you entirely that Rhodesia is a crucial part of the puzzle if we want to understand that the sides in the Cold War didn't line up in quite the way people imagine, and this, in turn, is crucial to our understanding of how we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of civilizational collapse.
Good to know, thank you!
…and we are watching the same thing happen in NYC, only slower.
Indeed
The obvious comparison with Mamdani is the Mayor of London, Sir (!) Sadiq Khan, who has caused immense damage, and is well on the way to ensuring that he has a new electorate that will never fail him.
Even so, the public profile that Khan has promoted is actually much more moderate than Mamdani - Khan is not overtly supportive of Hamas, and doesn't present himself as a socialist. I don't mean that I'm taken in by Khan's carefully constructed persona, but it is noteworthy that Mamdani doesn't even feel the need to do this. Yes, Mamdani has grudgingly walked back some of the points he previously liked to make for the sake of the election, but even that still leaves him far more overtly leftist and Islamist than Khan.
On the other hand, Mamdani has to operate under Trump, whereas Khan has had plain sailing, both under his own Labour Party, and previously under the equally globalist "Conservative" Party.
The level of violence to property and persons in NYC is also still much lower than in the NYC of the 70s and 80s (our host wrote a fine piece on this recently: "When the Radical Left Murdered Dozens and Bombed Thousands in the Name of Communist Revolution") - and we survived that. The mayor for much of the period was Ed Koch, who would have been astounded at the things Mamdani can not only say out loud, but which gain him more votes.
[Will, if you happen to be reading this, there's a new book on the subject of 70s terrorism: "The Revolutionists: The Story of the Extremists Who Hijacked the 1970s", by Jason Burke. The coverage is tilted towards the Middle East and Europe, so it doesn't overlap too much on the ground you covered yourself in your September 12 piece. Burke's CV as a journalist places him firmly within the legacy-media establishment, so I had my doubts. The section made available for free on Amazon is all I've read so far, and although I can tell that he is not a vigorously anti-communist reactionary like your good self (or me), there is nothing obnoxious so far. Burke clearly has a talent for constructing an engaging narrative from the known facts, so on this count alone, the book probably merits reading. If you'd consider this for a review at some point, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts (I don't have professional expertise in the area, but I do have some "uncommon knowledge" concerning the Soviet role). I don't know how your budget works for reviews, but if you have PayPal, I don't mind covering the cost of the book.
Thank you for this useful post. I was observing Rhodesian affairs from Australia in the 1960s and 70s and what you say is totally consistent with my recollections from the time.
Despite the Cold War over those decades, the Soviet and American governments were united in their opposition to Rhodesia.
Great article. Keep fighting the good fight!
Thank you!
That Tyler Cowen has so large an audience tells you he is not a Truth-Teller; Truth-Tellers are never popular.