Not meaning to be a Debbie Downer but most Americans could care less what happened in an African country other than whether the white man was put down or not . My interest in Africa changed when I saw The Wild Geese. I was fascinated with the first heart transplant stories out of South Africa yet looking now you wonder how they were able to do that with what came later
Yes I think that story of decline is what makes is relevant to Americans. St. Louis used to be a thriving, prosperous city…would you let a hospital there operate on your heart?
Much of the story and reasons for decline are similar, which is why I write so much about it
Let’s just have a House of Lords to discuss all the important issues and I assume a president instead of a King to make edicts and stuff.
Do we want bishops in there too, probably, but it’s hard to figure out what the correct Christianity is these days.
You’re absolutely correct that most people are like children who need a land-owning parent to show them the way. I totally don’t deserve to make decisions for myself until I can own a substantial amount of land. How am I supposed to prove my worthiness to govern unless I have extracted wealth from land and people?
I feel bad for you though, you seem to want to be part of this ruling class. But you don’t have the courage to put your name behind your opinions, how are you going to have the courage to acquire enough wealth to enter the ruling class? You don’t even know how to link your own articles in the text, so sad.
Anyway, keep up the fight to return us to the pre-revolutionary France. Maybe one day you’ll be lucky enough to catch a coin flipped from a carriage.
I may have been hyperbolic, but if you advocate a for a system the puts power on one side of a fence and removes it from the other, there's no guarantee that you'll end up on the power side. The most likely outcome is that if you are on the power side, the un-powered side will violently place you on the other. To think this won't happen is to ignore history and the basic human desire for autonomy.
There is certainly some truth there, and I see what you're getting at. For one, I think how well the system worked for a little over half a century is proof of that system working well, as it had been tried before, namely in England for centuries and in America up until Jackson. Because it wasn't new, Rhodesia is added evidence rather than a whole new thing.
But yes, together they would have made quite the power. It is a shame the South Africans didn't take up Ian Smith's offer of forming a commonwealth
Yes, Eisenhower’s aid of Egypt in that was despicable
Rhodesia’s attempt to survive was harder because it had no outlet to the sea, particularly after Beira fell with Portuguese East Africa and they couldn’t import oil anymore. Had any Western country helped them, or had Portugual fended off the Carnation Revolution, they probably would have made it
No. “We” don’t agree. You are proposing that government is like some nifty structure that is designed to fit people. Build the nifty structure and any people can make it work. This is not true.
National governments that work emerge organically from people who have the beliefs, habits, & technology that rewards cooperation amongst non-kin persons. If a population only values kin, it is impossible for a national government to emerge which can govern non-related persons. Factions along familial (tribal) lines always undermine and destroy such artificial attempts at national self governance.
Not meaning to be a Debbie Downer but most Americans could care less what happened in an African country other than whether the white man was put down or not . My interest in Africa changed when I saw The Wild Geese. I was fascinated with the first heart transplant stories out of South Africa yet looking now you wonder how they were able to do that with what came later
Yes I think that story of decline is what makes is relevant to Americans. St. Louis used to be a thriving, prosperous city…would you let a hospital there operate on your heart?
Much of the story and reasons for decline are similar, which is why I write so much about it
Africa will break your heart.....🌍😖☠️⚰️
......i wish I was wrong.
(great analysis bringing in the french revolution!)
Thank you!
Yes, it's quite sad
The discourse around Rhodesia is esoteric and only really known in particular right wing circles. Really cringe.
Zimbabwe is a sad witness.
It’s so tragic
Brilliant argument for the return of feudalism.
Let’s just have a House of Lords to discuss all the important issues and I assume a president instead of a King to make edicts and stuff.
Do we want bishops in there too, probably, but it’s hard to figure out what the correct Christianity is these days.
You’re absolutely correct that most people are like children who need a land-owning parent to show them the way. I totally don’t deserve to make decisions for myself until I can own a substantial amount of land. How am I supposed to prove my worthiness to govern unless I have extracted wealth from land and people?
I feel bad for you though, you seem to want to be part of this ruling class. But you don’t have the courage to put your name behind your opinions, how are you going to have the courage to acquire enough wealth to enter the ruling class? You don’t even know how to link your own articles in the text, so sad.
Anyway, keep up the fight to return us to the pre-revolutionary France. Maybe one day you’ll be lucky enough to catch a coin flipped from a carriage.
Landed/propertied voting isn't feudalism, nor is it even outside the American tradition. The Founders largely supported it, and it was how we voted for the first few decades. Here is John Adams defending it: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091#:~:text=Such%20is%20the%20Frailty%20of,their%20Minds%20to%20his%20Interest.
I also post all this on X under my name. I'm @will_tanner_1. The substack is just set up differently
I may have been hyperbolic, but if you advocate a for a system the puts power on one side of a fence and removes it from the other, there's no guarantee that you'll end up on the power side. The most likely outcome is that if you are on the power side, the un-powered side will violently place you on the other. To think this won't happen is to ignore history and the basic human desire for autonomy.
What you propose is endless war and revolution. No thanks. I'd rather share a nice peaceful coffee on a porch with my brothers and sisters listening to https://open.spotify.com/track/6Y0xVrqApTRi6gRE9VxNUM?si=4fa8ee5429b04ad0
I say this as an ex Rhodesian and proud Zimbabwean-Canadian.
There is certainly some truth there, and I see what you're getting at. For one, I think how well the system worked for a little over half a century is proof of that system working well, as it had been tried before, namely in England for centuries and in America up until Jackson. Because it wasn't new, Rhodesia is added evidence rather than a whole new thing.
But yes, together they would have made quite the power. It is a shame the South Africans didn't take up Ian Smith's offer of forming a commonwealth
Southern Rhodesia was self governing from 1923 to 1979. That’s 56 years.
It took a little less than 30 years for the nation that the USA broke away from, the United Kingdom, to attack a second time, and the USA survived.
Rhodesia could have survived had the west been supportive.
It should not surprise you that I also take a dim view of Eisenhower blocking the Suez Crisis actions of the United Kingdom, France, and Israel.
Yes, Eisenhower’s aid of Egypt in that was despicable
Rhodesia’s attempt to survive was harder because it had no outlet to the sea, particularly after Beira fell with Portuguese East Africa and they couldn’t import oil anymore. Had any Western country helped them, or had Portugual fended off the Carnation Revolution, they probably would have made it
No. “We” don’t agree. You are proposing that government is like some nifty structure that is designed to fit people. Build the nifty structure and any people can make it work. This is not true.
National governments that work emerge organically from people who have the beliefs, habits, & technology that rewards cooperation amongst non-kin persons. If a population only values kin, it is impossible for a national government to emerge which can govern non-related persons. Factions along familial (tribal) lines always undermine and destroy such artificial attempts at national self governance.