Race Communism, Egalitarianism, and Global Zimbabwe

Defining the present dysfunction

Welcome back, and thanks for reading! I’ve really appreciated all your support and interactions lately, particularly those who have shared articles and upgraded their subscriptions to read the paywalled pieces like Tuesday’s article on colonialism. I really appreciate the help and support, it’s what keeps this going. Thank you. As always, of you enjoy this post, please tap the heart to like this post so the algorithm knows to promote it!

I realized, when in a recent exchange on X, that a few key terms and ideas I frequently use have been left undefined, or at least unexplained. Namely, though I think I have explained the anarchotryanny concept reasonably well, I haven’t provided good and useful explanations of three other key terms: Race Communism, Egalitarianism, and Global Zimbabwe. So, here I will do so, both to show what I have meant in the past and as a resource for the future.

Race Communism

The first, and most frequently used term I need to define is “race communism.” This is a somewhat tough one, as it combines a few different concepts while also sounding catchy…so I have sensed that some, particularly on X, think it’s a filler word without much meaning other than “bad.”

That is wrong, as it gets to a specific issue and describes it succinctly. For example, despite being adopted by the people who destroyed Rhodesia, the economic system that destroyed Britain after World War II is very much not race communism. On the other hand, South Africa is certainly a race communist country despite nominally having a capitalist system and having less outright state control than England in the aforementioned era. Even America, which has a freer economic system than South Africa, has flirted dangerously close with race communism.

So, what is the difference? What makes race communism unique is that it is the weaponization of economic policy to advance any form of racial equality that proves disadvantageous to normal white people.

Listen to the audio version of this article here:

[AUDIO] Race Communism, Egalitarianism, and Global Zimbabwe

Race Communism Defined

At its base, race communism is the idea that all the aggrieved minority groups ought be able to get “payback” on the former “colonizers” for various sins of the past, real and imagined, and that the best way to inflict that payback is through economic policy that steals from the whites to give to the others.

This rarely leads to outright state ownership and operation of economic assets as seen in communist systems. However, it is the racial application of the communist “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” framework, and that in turn leads to race-based ownership of key assets rather than state control of them. This is explicitly enshrined in South Africa’s BEE framework, which requires the handing of partial ownership in companies to blacks, for no reason other than that they are black.¹

Such a mode of thought openly admits that certain groups—East Asians and Europeans—are more competent and of higher ability, and so it demands more of them in terms of taxes, regulatory compliance, footing the bill for welfare handouts, and the rest. Meanwhile, it admits that the formerly colonized groups are less competent, and so demands less from them while directing the fruits of those it demands more from their way. The view of the race communists is that such a system is just and moral because retribution demands it; more cynically, they understand it keeps the bioleninist coalition glued together.²

The African Examples

It is that mindset that has led to sweeping economic dysfunction of the sort seen in South Africa with its Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) monstrosity³ and land expropriation policy,⁴ and was seen in Zimbabwe when Mugabe decided to wreck the country with much the same land expropriation policy.⁵

The point is not to function, not to create an environment where all prosper, or even to avoid the worst sorts of atrocities and injustices. None of that matters. What matters is “equity.” What matters is seeing the regime’s client groups, most of whom are blacks, reap short-term profits at the expense of the “colonizers” by inflicting financial repression upon them. What matters is extorting and extracting wealth out of the competent few to give it to the incompetent, and thus “deserving,” many.

Race Communism in America

While race communism is most visible in decolonized Africa, where the various kleptocrats put in power by our Cold War decisions⁶ don’t even bother to hide it, it is present in America as well.

Take disparate impact law, a key pillar of the Civil Rights system.⁷ Under the current law in America, it is illegal to have a facially neutral, nondiscriminatory employment test—even one as basic as an IQ test—if the results of it show differences in outcome that are disavantageous to a “protected class,” which essentially means anyone who isn’t a straight, white person.

So, you have absurd outcomes like firefighters being sued for not hiring a disabled person and accommodating his disability…despite that disability making it impossible for him to fight fires.⁸ Or you have police departments lose disparate impact suits because they required prospective cops to pass an elementary-school level reasoning test and do 13 pushups, and black women flunked that, leading to the suit.⁹ Or you have a black woman who showed up late to work dozens of times fired for that lateness, and then win $11 million in a discrimination suit by alleging it was racist to make her show up on time.¹⁰ Or you have outright reparations programs for black farmers, and the government says, “white farmers need not apply.”¹¹

In each case, it is obvious that the desired outcome of our laws and legal system is very much not focused on or interested in creating a prosperous, functional country. Rather, the goal is to browbeat normal white people into subsidizing incompetence, as would be expected in a race communist system. Equinox gym leadership is more able, and therefore it should subsidize an employee too incompetent to even show up to work on time. White, male police officers are more able; therefore, they should pick up the slack for black women who literally couldn’t do thirteen pushups or pass a grade-school-level reasoning test.

And on and on it goes: the purpose of a system is what it does, and the purpose of this civilization-crushing system¹² is to squeeze you much the same way the Boer farmers in South Africa are being squeezed, for the same desired end of race-based wealth redistribution, even if the wealth to be redistributed is destroyed in the process.

Notably, things that are beneficial to those who aren’t “colonizers” are left untouched. The NBA and NFL both primarily benefit black players rather than white players, as that is who is good at the sport, and so the fact that there is a “disparate impact” against white men isn’t worried about. Meanwhile, sports like golf are constantly informed that they need to become more diverse.

That’s What Race Communism Is

So, that’s what race communism is. It is the state’s use of economic policy—tax, regulatory, and otherwise—to redistribute wealth in the name of racial “equity,” with the unspoken aim being to financially hurt those from whom the wealth is taken in the most painful way possible, even if that is destructive and leads to less wealth to redistribute.

Importantly, it is not so much state control of assets that is aimed for, as was the case with traditional communism, but rather for the “protected” groups, generally blacks, to achieve greater control over assets at the expense of the primarily white former “colonizers”. Any amount of wealth destruction and societal dysfunction is considered unobjectionable if it achieves that desired end, as shown by South Africa and the continual citing of the “Rainbow Nation” as a success story. To them, to the race communists, it has been a perfect success.

Egalitarianism

The other term I use frequently, without ever having fully explained what I mean by it, is egalitarianism. Though it frequently pops up in situations in which race communism is also involved, such as the Civil Rights revolution or the destruction of Rhodesia in the wake of its Bush War defeat, it is a non-racial concept. Instead, it gets at the idea of the differences between men and whether those differences should be understood and cherished, as they were in the days of rule by gentlemen, or destroyed in the name of the equality of man.

The History of Our Egalitarian System, and the Destruction of Hierarchy

Before the French Revolution, it was generally and widely understood that some men are simply better than others, and thus have a right and duty to lead. Even in America, the land of “all men are created equal,” the Revolution was a gentry-led affair,¹³ and Jefferson’s widely-recognized concept of “natural aristocracy”¹⁴ meant that universal male suffrage wasn’t the dominant system of voting until the 1830s, with racial and gender equality over a century away even then.

But things were different in France, where decades of pent-up resentment from the underclass blossomed into a murderous revolution that saw the execution of every noble the revolutionaries could get their hands on. Burke, understanding what such a turn of events meant, wrote, “The Age of Chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold the generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprize is gone!”¹⁵ There, hierarchy was murdered by demonic bioleninists like the boil-ridden, sewer-dwelling Marat and deformed Danton, and whatever injustices needed to be rectified were paid back a thousandfold in the blood of innocents.

Burke might have been a bit premature in his worries, as chivalry lived on somewhat in the Anglosphere, and the Victorian Age was its last gasp. But then Burke’s sophisters and economists succeeded in destroying it just a few decades later, as the envy-created¹⁶ onerous taxes of the 19th century destroyed¹⁷ whatever noble spirit remained in formerly Merry Old England and America. The sorts of estates that allowed George Washington to fight the British, Wade Hampton to raise a private legion and fight Lincoln’s legions, and the Duke of Westminster to become a war hero rescuing POWs from the Turks¹⁸ were taxed away in the name of economic equity, and the spirit inside the men that once owned them died too. Tradition can only survive 90% death taxes for so long…soon it is taxed away and dies, as do those who once guarded over it and lived up to its exacting standards.

As those taxes destroyed any remaining concept of hierarchy in the Anglosphere, wiping away what had long been its basis, the heads of the tall poppies were knocked off elsewhere.

France, for example, crumbled from its Belle Epoque revival and became a chaotic, socialistic mess…a dire state from which it has never really recovered.

In Russia, the Bolsheviks murdered anyone even slightly more competent than his neighbors. They tortuously murdered not only the entirety of the aristocracy but also anyone who was even a lower middle-class “kulak.”¹⁹ As if to show their hatred for any vestige of hierarchy, they tried to entirely wipe out the borzoi breed of dogs associated with the aristocracy,²⁰ and they peeled the skin off the hands of officers in the Tsar-friendly Guard regiments to mock the white gloves they once wore.²¹

All across the world, in short, the first half of the nineteenth century saw war upon any remaining vestiges of hierarchy. In the more peaceful instances, they were taxed into poverty by a democratic state that hated them. In the bloodier cases, they were murdered in agonizing ways after brutal civil conflicts.

And so we ended up with the present, where we have rule by bureaucracy so that no man can have more control than his fellows.²²

That’s What Egalitarianism Is

Egalitarianism, loosely defined in the public vernacular, is the idea that everyone is equally important and capable, and as such deserving of equal rights and opportunities. But, as with race communism, “some are more equal than others,” and so those behind the egalitarian project quickly find they need to boost the underperformers so as to create the perception of equal competence and outcomes. Hence the drift toward ever-harsher affirmative action policies, hectoring professors demanding parents not teach their kids so as to give them a step up,²³ and all the rest seen in the South Africanization of America.²⁴

That, in practice, is what egalitarianism is. It is not the airy idea that everyone is vaguely equal, and so there shouldn’t be distinctions made in the law between different classes.

It’s not the idea, as put by former President Joe Biden, that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.” The former hasn’t been the case for centuries. The latter is either accepted by everyone as true (if he meant the idea that people like Edison should be able to rise through the ranks) or demonstrably false, as shown by Murray’s The Bell Curve (if he meant the idea that intelligence is distributed equally across races). Either way, that’s not what egalitarianism really is, in practice.

Rather, what egalitarianism becomes is the idea that the state ought crush any differences in human accomplishment, at least those differences between various socio-economic classes and racial groups, so as to present the appearance of total equality of outcome as created by total equality of capability.

In the economic realm, this means excessively higher income taxes the more you make, death taxes that crush long-term family building, and regulations that make it difficult for the able to build anything without dragging many incompetents along with them. In the political realm, this means disparate impact law, the intentional destruction of hierarchical states like Rhodesia,²⁵ and a devolution of everything to bureaucracy so that no great men can be great. And socially, it means DEI at best or Bolshevik torturing of the Guards officers at worst; either way, the destruction of hierarchy is the point.

So, that is what egalitarianism is and what I mean by it. It is hatred of any sort of hierarchy—including Jefferson’s concept of a meritocratic, “Natural Aristocracy”²⁶—paired with the belief that any sort of hierarchy that does exist must be covered up and simultaneously destroyed so that differences can remain hidden.

Global Zimbabwe

Finally, there is “Global Zimbabwe.” This term means, essentially, the overlap of race communism and egalitarianism. It is the belief that what is moral and deserved is the turning of the whole world into something approaching Zimbabwe, an unprosperous and tyrant-ruled hell where the state’s one purpose is to ensure racial “equality,” meaning extraction from and oppression of whites.

They, meaning the egalitarian-minded members of the establishment, did this in Rhodesia because of its explicitly hierarchical system of government. As I noted in the recent essay on why Rhodesia had to declare independence, the issue Britain and America had with Rhodesia’s government was its A Roll and B Roll system (discussed in depth in that essay), as that system showed “a clear recognition of natural hierarchies amongst men that had to be recognized by the political system for that system to function properly and prove beneficial to all citizens, voters and non-voters alike. Such an understanding was well within the Western tradition, but despised by those who, like Harold Wilson, grew uncomfortable in the presence of hierarchy.”

In short, they despise any sort of hierarchy and will do whatever is necessary to destroy it. That’s what they did to Rhodesia, and now they want to do it everywhere else for the same reasons. They view any difference of outcome in capacity or achievement as evidence of an unfair hierarchy, and thus in need of destruction.

This is why you have Pakistanis flooding into Britian and having the state not only pay for their lifestyles, but cover for them when they rape young girls.²⁷ This is why you have civilization-destroying disparate impact law in America, Africans in Ireland, the overthrow of Libya,²⁸ and South Africa turning into an increasingly more dire version of itself.²⁹ The goal is the South African-style destruction³⁰ through race communism and anarcho-tryanny of those areas that are better than others, as the egalitarians believe no one has a right to be better than anyone else, and thus we all ought be shoved into the equality of a crime-ridden, bug-infested favela.

My friend John Carter, describing this process and how Rhodesia shows what is coming in a superb essay titled The Rebellion of the Helots Against Liberalism's Zimbabwean Telos, noted (emphasis added):

Rhodesia may have been the most noble of the British Empire’s colonial experiments. Their wartime president Ian Smith – a Spitfire pilot during WWII – said they were “more British than the British” due to the way they held fast to old British customs. Rhodesia had an extremely selective immigration policy, allowing only for men of proven character, accomplishment, distinction, and ability. They ruled the country like the competent, confident warrior-aristocrats they were, using modern scientific agriculture to establish vast and profitable farming estates that became the breadbasket of Africa. Local Africans found employment on the farms; Africans abroad benefited from the food they produced. While almost none of them could participate in Rhodesia’s politics, because the country’s founding charter specified that only property-holders could vote, the relationship between black man and white was symbiotic and mutually advantageous.

…

After the war, however, the British government reneged. The socialists decided that it was unseemly that Rhodesia’s constitution effectively barred blacks from voting, since all of the land and therefore voting power was held in the hands of white Rhodesians. The British government insisted that Rhodesian independence required an amended constitution, which would instead mandate majority rule, which after all was much more democratic and much less racist. The Rhodies balked at this. Unlike the comfortable, fashionable leftists in Parliament, the Rhodesians lived in Africa, and understood what Africans were like. Majority rule, they knew with dread certainty, would plunge the country into darkness. The Africans were neolithic horticulturalists who believed in witchcraft. They lacked the conceptual skills necessary to manage a Medieval market town, let alone a modern industrial-agricultural state such as Rhodesia.

Even to articulate such a sentiment was of course unacceptably bigoted to the sensitive liberal ear of that time and all that has followed, but as it always does, the sentiment proved to be entirely accurate.

…

Zimbabwe is the seed pattern for decolonization. Converting Rhodesia into Zimbabwe is the telos of Civil Rights liberalism.

…

In the wake of Rhodesia’s murder, everything it stood for came under sustained cultural attack. Rhodesia’s founding ideal was to produce the highest sort of men. Its immigration policy was deliberately eugenic. It sought to take the best of men and women, and breed them, and raise their children fit to be the aristocratic exemplars of a warrior republic. To the modern nose this reeks of fascism or something. Modern man has been conditioned to see the well-justified pride of accomplishment emerging from true nobility as something exclusive, arrogant, and therefore horrible, and instead to embrace Pride in anal polyps and sexually mutilated children.

The Anglo countries are all busily trying to become Zimbabwe as quickly as they can, importing people from around the world as fast as they are able, by means according with the laws the importing governments supposedly administer, and by means outside those laws, for the desired third world flux cannot possibly be justified on any reasonable grounds to their exasperated native electorates ... not that the governments care what their captive peoples think about anything, being accustomed to telling them what to think so that they’ll speak and vote accordingly ... as even now, even in South Africa, many of them in fact continue to do.

It’s an excellent essay, I highly recommend you read the rest, but that gets to the main point. Rhodesia was, much like early Virginia,³¹ a glimpse at something greater. A glimpse at the good qualities of the Old World blended with the need for martial excellence and continual prudence present on the frontier, in Indian country.

It was destroyed because the sorts of people who hate hierarchy recognized it for what it was: the flowering of Western civilization’s greatest ideals and attributes. Now, they are working to destroy what remains of those ideals and attributes elsewhere. Whether that means crushing South Africa because it shows racial egalitarianism is a fool’s errarand (or tyrant’s dream), foisting disparate impact on America so as to end our economic miracle, or obliterating tradition in Britain by saddling it with free trade and Pakis, it is what they want. They want Global Zimbabwe, and plan to use race communism and egalitarianism to get there.

Featured image credit: Geoff Stearns from San Francisco, CA, USA, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for reading! If you find my work valuable, please tap the heart at the top or bottom of this page to like the article, as that is how the algorithm knows to promote it. Further, please upgrade to become a paid subscriber. Your subscriptions help me continue growing this publication, and around 1/3 new articles—such as the recent post on Rhodesia’s reasons for independence—will be for paid subscribers only. Thanks again!

1.

2. Bioleninism is the understanding that the modern left’s main base of support is a fractured coalition of various dysfunctional groups in the underclass, life’s losers, and that the best way to use them politically is to weaponize that biological grievance agianst the more competent/put together. It was developed by an anonymous figure named Spandrell, and is essentially how race communism is implemented.

Learn more here: https://spandrell.ch/2017/11/13/biological-leninism

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. https://www.firelawblog.com/2024/12/15/maryland-firefighter-alleges-disability-discrimination/

9. https://www.courthousenews.com/pennsylvania-state-police-will-pay-up-after-fitness-test-drew-bias-suit/

10. https://thepostmillennial.com/black-woman-fired-after-being-late-to-work-47-times-sues-equinox-for-discrimination-wins-millions

11.

12.

13. Gordon Wood explains this well in Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different

14. Jefferson and America's Lost Idea: Natural Aristocracy

15. From Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France

16. Death taxes are firmly rooted in teh politics of envy: https://meridianstar.com/2006/08/12/the-politics-of-envy/

17.

18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Hakeim_rescue

19. The page available here summarizes this well: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400836062-005/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOorJNDnJtilI7oaobVZ5AFgPH8N-raWUxvlhhuZe7Opvz1A7r8eq

20. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/14/nyregion/a-soviet-visitor-and-a-quest-preserving-the-borzoi.html

21. This is a story told by John Keegan in his The Second World War

22.

23. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf/

24.

25.

26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_aristocracy

27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooming_gangs_scandal

And the gangs were indescribably evil: https://x.com/CompositeGuy_/status/1935290692676276334

28.

29.

30.

31.