I tried to get on with CIA. During the interview, I was so put off by their arrogance and general assholery that I opted not to bother continuing with the recruitment. Glad I did that. My life might be much 'lesser,' but at least I ain't part of the problem.
this and many other small anecdotes confirm that the alt right, rabid anti communists and anti woke cultural warriors are in fact, the rejects of the mainstream USA institutions like the cia or Hollywood. Their mistrust and hated of these is not ideological or rational, but born out of spite.
Your interview with burden on this subject was great. You should considering writing a book about this as I think it’s more than worthy of that level of treatment. Unless anyone is familiar with a similar book already?
Everything I have heard of Rhodesia points to it being one of the worst betrayals of success and freedom, disguised as “opposing tyranny and racism“, because some accursed bureaucrats and traitors in governments around the world didn’t want to look bad or admit that Rhodesia was successful.
Always thought the massive foreign policy disaster that was 1979 would make a great book: Rhodesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, China, Cambodia, Korea…everything went to sh!t under Carter in one year.
I assert that the CIA subsequently installed the bLACKING Bolsheviks in Zud Afrika and has been continuously responsible for the White death toll since.
His government furthermore, wasn’t racist but rather pragmatic. Voting in Rhodesia as Donald Mclean talked about wasn’t based on skin color but on education and property ownership. The minority of black people who met these qualifications did obtain suffrage. But most black Rhodesians still needed time to progress as a civilization and obtain the necessary knowledge and resources to qualify to vote. Nonetheless, President Jimmy Carter and the CIA were determined to portray Smith and the Rhodesian Front as racist and like the KKK in Africa, and to bring Rhodesia down. The CIA itself well…didn’t have the greatest track record. It justified George Marshall abandoning Chiang Kai-shek and losing China to Mao and the Chinese Communists, was often infiltrated by the Soviets, was totally inept in Cuba, failed to kill Castro, and couldn’t figure out how many missiles the Soviets had in their arsenal. They couldn’t overthrow Rhodesia in a Guatemala-style coup, but they did do all they could to help ZAPU and ZANU by lying about Ian Smith and Rhodesia.
The CIA freely admitted the amazing job Ian Smith had done building a well-developed economy and functional society in the face of western sanctions. But then smears the country as racist and fails to mention the atrocities committed by the ZANU and ZAPU rebels who were armed and trained by the Soviet Union and Red China. They lied and said whites in Rhodesia tyrannized over blacks. This is nonsense, yes, there was racial segregation and discrimination in Rhodesia to an extent and there were inequalities between whites and blacks. The treatment of natives in Rhodesia wasn’t prefect. But overall, whites and natives in Rhodesia generally got on well and the Rhodesian government protected the natives just as they did whites. Plus, black Rhodesians had better living standards, household incomes and educational and economic opportunities than their counterparts in any African country. The CIA framed the ZANU and ZAPU rebels as pro-democracy moderates. This is absolute nonsense! They were communist terrorists, plain and simple.
Furthermore, while Rhodesia had its faults and treatment of whites and blacks could be unequal at times and there were some racist laws on the books, it was NOT an apartheid state and there was never any formal government sanctioned system of racial separation in Rhodesia as there was in South Africa. This also ignores that the village chiefs and all their followers supported Smith and the government and that whites and blacks fought together the same units in the Rhodesian Army. The CIA even absurdly argued that massive shipments of Soviet and Chinese arms to the communist rebels did not constitute communist sympathies. Again, this is patently ludicrous.
Here’s what should’ve happened, the Carter administration and the CIA should’ve given Rhodesia all the military and economic aid it needed. The CIA should’ve worked with Rhodesian government forces to hunt down and destroy the communists. The United Kingdom would be more conciliatory towards Rhodesia. All the sanctions on Rhodesia would be lifted. The West would work with and help Rhodesia while pushing for pragmatic reforms and incremental change in the country. The United States and the United Kingdom would support Ian Smith and moderate African nationalists in negotiating an Internal Settlement WITHOUT any involvement from ZAPU or ZANU. The old 1961 Constitution would be revived along with the idea of A roll and B roll voters. Blacks could move up to the A roll as they made educational and economic gains. Gradually leading to black majority rule. Government programs would educate and provide vocational training to black Rhodesians. Racist laws would be dismantled and white and black Rhodesians would be gradually become accustomed to being in integrated environments together.
Land reform would be done only with the consent of the original owner, with compensation and according to law and overseen by the authorities. The CIA would covertly assist the Rhodesian Army in rooting out and defeating the rebels. Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo would be tried and sent to prison for life with no possibility of parole. President Carter would sign a trade pact with Rhodesia. Great Britain, France and West Germany would also open their doors to Rhodesia and start trading with them and exchanging goods and services. The United Nations would pass a resolution co-sponsored by the United States condemning the ZAPU and ZANU rebels. The United States, United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel would all sell arms, tanks, trucks, jet fighters, and other supplies to Rhodesia to fight Communism.
👏👏👏 A tour de force of a piece that is lengthy but I got through it pretty easily. I did have my disagreements in places, but overall I would agree with Mr. Tanner here. The CIA was important in helping accomplish the destruction of Rhodesia despite the key role it played in fighting Communism. The West warts and all, was the best place on Earth to live and still is to this day. It was structured around two important principles: ordered liberty and natural hierarchy. This was in contrast to the rest of the world. For example, Africa remained stuck in the Stone Age and largely was run by some form of chief-ruled anarchy. Another example, China who was ruled by a strict and defined hierarchy with the Son of Heaven, the Emperor at the top. Furthermore, they lacked any sense of ordered liberty or any liberty at all for that matter, for the ordinary Chinese peasant. The West stood out as exceptional for this reason. Within western society a man was free to live his life as he wished free from arbitrary authority or and the chaos of anarchy. One position’s in society was defined but mutable. A man could rise as high as his merits could take him if he worked hard.
America had a hierarchy by a flexible hierarchy unlike the rigid hierarchies where the monarch and the nobles were at the top and the peasants and poor were at the bottom and if you want to try and get better life for you and your family tough s*** you were stuck where you were. This was the case in places like Imperial Russia, China under the Quing Dynasty and the Ottoman Empire. But in the West in places like the United States, Great Britain or France, if a man had the ability he would be given the opportunity to climb the ladder in society if he the talent, intelligence, determination, work ethic, and savvy to do so. But western civilization would be greatly weakened first by World War I. World War I saw horrific levels of casualties of the battlefield, killed millions of young men, physical and psychologically damaged countless more, while villages were wiped out, cities lay in ruins, and deadly new technologies were introduced to the battlefield. World War I was a bloodbath on a scale never before seen. Much of the West’s best from top to bottom, were wiped out.
The interwar years would see the October Revolution of 1917 and Russia’s fall to Communism, the ascension of Vladimir Lenin to power and the birth of the Soviet Union. In Britain, the “New Jerusalem” promised to World War I veterans never came into being. France struggled with debt, inflation and the loss of a good portion of a generation of young men. Germany would be plagued by Communist revolts, anarchy, and hyperinflation. America saw anger about the war and its great losses, a rejection of Wilson’s League of Nations and the election of Republican and Isolationist governments. In America and Britain thousands had been arrested for opposing the war.
Then came the Great Depression which devastated the global economy. In America, it caused mass unemployment, many lost their life’s savings, banks collapsed, financial panic set in, bread lines, the appearance of shanty towns where the poor lived called “Hoovervilles,” and the wiping out of our Gilded Age Aristocracy. Britain saw much of the same. Meanwhile, the Soviets starved to death millions of Ukrainian Christians in the Holdomor and Josef Stalin ruled the USSR with an iron fist. The West would be then be further weakened by the great cataclysm that was World War II. Americans and Brits who opposed the war were arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison. Now we come to the Cold War.
On one side, you had the free world with all its flaws and diminished by the two world wars. Still, it represented freedom, liberty, justice, and opportunity to people around the world. It was a beacon of hope. Nonetheless, it would make serious mistakes during the Cold War that would come back to haunt it. Meanwhile, on the other side you had Communism. An Iron Curtain descended across Eastern and Central Europe. The Soviet Union rose to become a nuclear superpower seeking to spread Marxism around the globe anywhere they could. The Soviets brutally raped and pillaged anywhere they occupied. Communist insurgencies broke out around the world in Greece, Kenya, Cuba, and Korea. Tens of millions would die in Communist China under Chairman Mao. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara murdered hundreds in their forced labor camps in Cuba. North Korea saw the rise of Kim Il Sung a ruthless totalitarian thug, to power.
During the Cold War the West sought to fight Communism and contain and if possible, rollback its influence wherever they found it. But they also had another more subtle motive, egalitarianism and destroying the Old World. The military-industrial complex meanwhile made a killing off all the weapons they sold during the Cold War. There are many examples of what is described above. First, the United States betrayed the French in Indochina and gave them only nominal assistance. As a result, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh took the country and the United States forced out the remaining French troops in Indochina. In Vietnam, we supported the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem who was a competent leader and did years of land reform which only served to strip the anti-Communist aristocracy of their resources and played right into the hands of the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies. Vietnam would be thrown to the wolves and lost to the Communists in 1975.
In the Mediterranean, FDR and Harry Truman tried to get Winston Churchill to sacrifice Greece to Stalin. But he bravely refused and Greece remained free. The United States was none too pleased about this and got its revenge in Algeria. America portrayed the French in Algeria as barbaric murderers. Yes, elements of the French Army used torture during the war. But it wasn’t as widely used as the official narrative would have you believe. The French Army for all their flaws, were the good guys fighting to save the country from the evil FLN terrorists who butchered men, women and children, Europeans and Arabs alike. America didn’t care and forced them to hand over the country and the innocent Pieds-Noirs settlers in it to the terrorists. The United States forced Britain and France to give control of the Suez Canal back to Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. Its the same story everywhere you looked from Burma to Equatorial Guinea. American perfidy and Soviet advisors forced out the old European powers.
What they failed to understand, was that natural hierarchy is what had developed and help greatly improve the countries that the Europeans colonized. The native peoples sadly lost the stable, western rule that brought them ordered liberty and relative prosperity. What replaced it ran the gamut of horrid regimes from Juan Peron’s populist socialism to Pol Pot’s ruthless, cruel and sadistic agrarian communism which murdered millions. That brings us to the story of how the CIA helped destroy Rhodesia. Rhodesia was led by Ian Smith, a genteel, large-scale landowner and World War II veteran of the RAF. Was Smith a racist? It depends on what we mean by the word. Smith was a product of his time and upbringing who had paternalistic views about black people. He saw them as childlike, not as advanced as whites and in need of being uplifted. But did he hate black people? No, not at all. While his views towards the natives were paternalistic and typical for the 20th Century, he genuinely cared about and respected black Rhodesians.
Bravo, bravo for this beautifully written description of our long march toward making the West into Zimbabwe. Mugabe, the monster, was bestowed with honorary degrees from Western prestigious universities. Later, when the devastation was too horrific and large to ignore, they were rescinded.
I don't think the true goal is egalitarianism - that's just the marketing cover. The true goal is the deliberate destruction of western civilization by a hidden power which wishes to rule the whole world and perceives(d) the old order as its enemy.
I am Jewish myself, come from the most Jewish, shitlib place imaginable, and the only guy I knew who was Jewish who worked at the CIA was half Jewish with an extremely Irish last name. Obviously anecdotal but I am pretty well networked... For whatever this is worth.
Realistically, what could have Rhodesia done? They seem to have done everything right in paper yet they still drew diplomatic hostility from the world.
Not invading Mozambique probably would have been the right move, as invading it is what got the world’s ire refocused on them in the late ‘70s.
Had they dodged that bullet, there’s a better chance they could have held out until Reagan, and unlike Nixon or Thatcher he was reasonably friendly to their interests. The leftists in power of course, namely Wilson and Carter, were awful to Rhodesia
But really the war was close to unwinnable once Portugal fell and the terrorists had Mozambique to operate from
Awesome article! Very revealing. Would love to see something about the CIA evolvement on the fall of Portugal (and therefore, the fall of Angola and Moçambique) in 1974.
If what you call the west even existed, then it’s nature is , as you detailed in this article, self destructive and self sabotaging. Every “western” empire has fallen prey to other “western empires”
There is no sense in the west that its nations or empires are bounded by kin. They are in fact ruthless to each other and always end up butchering one another.
Infighting has certainly always been part of it, but generally that has been over the share of resources controlled by each empire, not an attempt to blow everything up
Fighting over this or that duchy in the Middle Ages, for example, or over control of colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, was about benefit. But no one benefited from what’s described here, nor was benefit even the calculus of it. It was about a caustic, destructive ideology that dismantled all of what used to exist, which is quite different
There has been no shortages of “blow everything up” in western history. From the destruction of the Spanish empire, to the proposed partition of Germany, right down to generalplan ost. I agree that prior to the modern age this may not have been the norm, but past the Protestant reformation, any veneer of common unity was worn off.
I highly doubt no one benefited from the specific case your present. The USA hardly does anything that does not benefit it or its elites. The collapse of the colonial empires was fostered by the USA because it did not want competitors. The USA would go on to colonize the third world on its own terms, using a much more refined and effective version of colonialism, the USA viewed these colonial empires as historical dinosaurs that were unproductive and unprofitable.
I tried to get on with CIA. During the interview, I was so put off by their arrogance and general assholery that I opted not to bother continuing with the recruitment. Glad I did that. My life might be much 'lesser,' but at least I ain't part of the problem.
Yeah they are awful
this and many other small anecdotes confirm that the alt right, rabid anti communists and anti woke cultural warriors are in fact, the rejects of the mainstream USA institutions like the cia or Hollywood. Their mistrust and hated of these is not ideological or rational, but born out of spite.
YOU are a midwit, desperately trying to sound smart.
Mainstream institutions are CORRUPTED, midwit. That's why guys like you think well of them; you are MIDWITs. Too stupid to see the real problem.
Now run along and find imaginary faults elsewhere.
Your interview with burden on this subject was great. You should considering writing a book about this as I think it’s more than worthy of that level of treatment. Unless anyone is familiar with a similar book already?
Thank you!
I believe “Background to Betrayal,” soon to be republished by the JBS, covers some of this
I will look into writing a book eventually
Everything I have heard of Rhodesia points to it being one of the worst betrayals of success and freedom, disguised as “opposing tyranny and racism“, because some accursed bureaucrats and traitors in governments around the world didn’t want to look bad or admit that Rhodesia was successful.
Absolutely
It stood in opposition to “our” egalitarian mindset, and so it was destroyed
Great article. Ian Smith was popular with blacks and whites. Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Another of jimmy carters failures.
Thank you, absolutely. I have an article on Carter’s involvement, if you’re interested: https://www.theamericantribune.news/p/why-did-jimmy-carter-side-with-communists
Always thought the massive foreign policy disaster that was 1979 would make a great book: Rhodesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, China, Cambodia, Korea…everything went to sh!t under Carter in one year.
Absolutely
I assert that the CIA subsequently installed the bLACKING Bolsheviks in Zud Afrika and has been continuously responsible for the White death toll since.
This is certainly true in Rhodesia, the Congo, and others. I suspect it’s true in South Africa as well, though it does appear they handed mandela over
His government furthermore, wasn’t racist but rather pragmatic. Voting in Rhodesia as Donald Mclean talked about wasn’t based on skin color but on education and property ownership. The minority of black people who met these qualifications did obtain suffrage. But most black Rhodesians still needed time to progress as a civilization and obtain the necessary knowledge and resources to qualify to vote. Nonetheless, President Jimmy Carter and the CIA were determined to portray Smith and the Rhodesian Front as racist and like the KKK in Africa, and to bring Rhodesia down. The CIA itself well…didn’t have the greatest track record. It justified George Marshall abandoning Chiang Kai-shek and losing China to Mao and the Chinese Communists, was often infiltrated by the Soviets, was totally inept in Cuba, failed to kill Castro, and couldn’t figure out how many missiles the Soviets had in their arsenal. They couldn’t overthrow Rhodesia in a Guatemala-style coup, but they did do all they could to help ZAPU and ZANU by lying about Ian Smith and Rhodesia.
The CIA freely admitted the amazing job Ian Smith had done building a well-developed economy and functional society in the face of western sanctions. But then smears the country as racist and fails to mention the atrocities committed by the ZANU and ZAPU rebels who were armed and trained by the Soviet Union and Red China. They lied and said whites in Rhodesia tyrannized over blacks. This is nonsense, yes, there was racial segregation and discrimination in Rhodesia to an extent and there were inequalities between whites and blacks. The treatment of natives in Rhodesia wasn’t prefect. But overall, whites and natives in Rhodesia generally got on well and the Rhodesian government protected the natives just as they did whites. Plus, black Rhodesians had better living standards, household incomes and educational and economic opportunities than their counterparts in any African country. The CIA framed the ZANU and ZAPU rebels as pro-democracy moderates. This is absolute nonsense! They were communist terrorists, plain and simple.
Furthermore, while Rhodesia had its faults and treatment of whites and blacks could be unequal at times and there were some racist laws on the books, it was NOT an apartheid state and there was never any formal government sanctioned system of racial separation in Rhodesia as there was in South Africa. This also ignores that the village chiefs and all their followers supported Smith and the government and that whites and blacks fought together the same units in the Rhodesian Army. The CIA even absurdly argued that massive shipments of Soviet and Chinese arms to the communist rebels did not constitute communist sympathies. Again, this is patently ludicrous.
Here’s what should’ve happened, the Carter administration and the CIA should’ve given Rhodesia all the military and economic aid it needed. The CIA should’ve worked with Rhodesian government forces to hunt down and destroy the communists. The United Kingdom would be more conciliatory towards Rhodesia. All the sanctions on Rhodesia would be lifted. The West would work with and help Rhodesia while pushing for pragmatic reforms and incremental change in the country. The United States and the United Kingdom would support Ian Smith and moderate African nationalists in negotiating an Internal Settlement WITHOUT any involvement from ZAPU or ZANU. The old 1961 Constitution would be revived along with the idea of A roll and B roll voters. Blacks could move up to the A roll as they made educational and economic gains. Gradually leading to black majority rule. Government programs would educate and provide vocational training to black Rhodesians. Racist laws would be dismantled and white and black Rhodesians would be gradually become accustomed to being in integrated environments together.
Land reform would be done only with the consent of the original owner, with compensation and according to law and overseen by the authorities. The CIA would covertly assist the Rhodesian Army in rooting out and defeating the rebels. Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo would be tried and sent to prison for life with no possibility of parole. President Carter would sign a trade pact with Rhodesia. Great Britain, France and West Germany would also open their doors to Rhodesia and start trading with them and exchanging goods and services. The United Nations would pass a resolution co-sponsored by the United States condemning the ZAPU and ZANU rebels. The United States, United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel would all sell arms, tanks, trucks, jet fighters, and other supplies to Rhodesia to fight Communism.
👏👏👏 A tour de force of a piece that is lengthy but I got through it pretty easily. I did have my disagreements in places, but overall I would agree with Mr. Tanner here. The CIA was important in helping accomplish the destruction of Rhodesia despite the key role it played in fighting Communism. The West warts and all, was the best place on Earth to live and still is to this day. It was structured around two important principles: ordered liberty and natural hierarchy. This was in contrast to the rest of the world. For example, Africa remained stuck in the Stone Age and largely was run by some form of chief-ruled anarchy. Another example, China who was ruled by a strict and defined hierarchy with the Son of Heaven, the Emperor at the top. Furthermore, they lacked any sense of ordered liberty or any liberty at all for that matter, for the ordinary Chinese peasant. The West stood out as exceptional for this reason. Within western society a man was free to live his life as he wished free from arbitrary authority or and the chaos of anarchy. One position’s in society was defined but mutable. A man could rise as high as his merits could take him if he worked hard.
America had a hierarchy by a flexible hierarchy unlike the rigid hierarchies where the monarch and the nobles were at the top and the peasants and poor were at the bottom and if you want to try and get better life for you and your family tough s*** you were stuck where you were. This was the case in places like Imperial Russia, China under the Quing Dynasty and the Ottoman Empire. But in the West in places like the United States, Great Britain or France, if a man had the ability he would be given the opportunity to climb the ladder in society if he the talent, intelligence, determination, work ethic, and savvy to do so. But western civilization would be greatly weakened first by World War I. World War I saw horrific levels of casualties of the battlefield, killed millions of young men, physical and psychologically damaged countless more, while villages were wiped out, cities lay in ruins, and deadly new technologies were introduced to the battlefield. World War I was a bloodbath on a scale never before seen. Much of the West’s best from top to bottom, were wiped out.
The interwar years would see the October Revolution of 1917 and Russia’s fall to Communism, the ascension of Vladimir Lenin to power and the birth of the Soviet Union. In Britain, the “New Jerusalem” promised to World War I veterans never came into being. France struggled with debt, inflation and the loss of a good portion of a generation of young men. Germany would be plagued by Communist revolts, anarchy, and hyperinflation. America saw anger about the war and its great losses, a rejection of Wilson’s League of Nations and the election of Republican and Isolationist governments. In America and Britain thousands had been arrested for opposing the war.
Then came the Great Depression which devastated the global economy. In America, it caused mass unemployment, many lost their life’s savings, banks collapsed, financial panic set in, bread lines, the appearance of shanty towns where the poor lived called “Hoovervilles,” and the wiping out of our Gilded Age Aristocracy. Britain saw much of the same. Meanwhile, the Soviets starved to death millions of Ukrainian Christians in the Holdomor and Josef Stalin ruled the USSR with an iron fist. The West would be then be further weakened by the great cataclysm that was World War II. Americans and Brits who opposed the war were arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison. Now we come to the Cold War.
On one side, you had the free world with all its flaws and diminished by the two world wars. Still, it represented freedom, liberty, justice, and opportunity to people around the world. It was a beacon of hope. Nonetheless, it would make serious mistakes during the Cold War that would come back to haunt it. Meanwhile, on the other side you had Communism. An Iron Curtain descended across Eastern and Central Europe. The Soviet Union rose to become a nuclear superpower seeking to spread Marxism around the globe anywhere they could. The Soviets brutally raped and pillaged anywhere they occupied. Communist insurgencies broke out around the world in Greece, Kenya, Cuba, and Korea. Tens of millions would die in Communist China under Chairman Mao. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara murdered hundreds in their forced labor camps in Cuba. North Korea saw the rise of Kim Il Sung a ruthless totalitarian thug, to power.
During the Cold War the West sought to fight Communism and contain and if possible, rollback its influence wherever they found it. But they also had another more subtle motive, egalitarianism and destroying the Old World. The military-industrial complex meanwhile made a killing off all the weapons they sold during the Cold War. There are many examples of what is described above. First, the United States betrayed the French in Indochina and gave them only nominal assistance. As a result, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh took the country and the United States forced out the remaining French troops in Indochina. In Vietnam, we supported the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem who was a competent leader and did years of land reform which only served to strip the anti-Communist aristocracy of their resources and played right into the hands of the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies. Vietnam would be thrown to the wolves and lost to the Communists in 1975.
In the Mediterranean, FDR and Harry Truman tried to get Winston Churchill to sacrifice Greece to Stalin. But he bravely refused and Greece remained free. The United States was none too pleased about this and got its revenge in Algeria. America portrayed the French in Algeria as barbaric murderers. Yes, elements of the French Army used torture during the war. But it wasn’t as widely used as the official narrative would have you believe. The French Army for all their flaws, were the good guys fighting to save the country from the evil FLN terrorists who butchered men, women and children, Europeans and Arabs alike. America didn’t care and forced them to hand over the country and the innocent Pieds-Noirs settlers in it to the terrorists. The United States forced Britain and France to give control of the Suez Canal back to Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. Its the same story everywhere you looked from Burma to Equatorial Guinea. American perfidy and Soviet advisors forced out the old European powers.
What they failed to understand, was that natural hierarchy is what had developed and help greatly improve the countries that the Europeans colonized. The native peoples sadly lost the stable, western rule that brought them ordered liberty and relative prosperity. What replaced it ran the gamut of horrid regimes from Juan Peron’s populist socialism to Pol Pot’s ruthless, cruel and sadistic agrarian communism which murdered millions. That brings us to the story of how the CIA helped destroy Rhodesia. Rhodesia was led by Ian Smith, a genteel, large-scale landowner and World War II veteran of the RAF. Was Smith a racist? It depends on what we mean by the word. Smith was a product of his time and upbringing who had paternalistic views about black people. He saw them as childlike, not as advanced as whites and in need of being uplifted. But did he hate black people? No, not at all. While his views towards the natives were paternalistic and typical for the 20th Century, he genuinely cared about and respected black Rhodesians.
Bravo, bravo for this beautifully written description of our long march toward making the West into Zimbabwe. Mugabe, the monster, was bestowed with honorary degrees from Western prestigious universities. Later, when the devastation was too horrific and large to ignore, they were rescinded.
Ah, I did not know they were rescinded. That is interesting
And thank you very much! I appreciate your kind comments
This is true. America created the Cold War theatre
Jonas Savimbi was also done in
I need to look more into him
Wait till you figure out why we made sure the Republic of China lost…
I haven’t read much on that, do you have anything good on it I should read?
George Marshall stopped The RoC from killing off the commies because we needed to set china back while also playing them against the soviets
Could you imagine Taiwan skillz in charge of a country that didn't kill off all the intelligent people and break their familial spirit?
I don't think the true goal is egalitarianism - that's just the marketing cover. The true goal is the deliberate destruction of western civilization by a hidden power which wishes to rule the whole world and perceives(d) the old order as its enemy.
How jewish is the CIA? I assume very, due to its unwavering commitment to anti-White communism.
It was mainly Northern WASP libtards in the post-WW2 period, as they were the ones who also staffed the OSS
So not very
Interesting. Jews are behind every other left-wing, anti-Western initiative and organizetion. Why not this one?
I am Jewish myself, come from the most Jewish, shitlib place imaginable, and the only guy I knew who was Jewish who worked at the CIA was half Jewish with an extremely Irish last name. Obviously anecdotal but I am pretty well networked... For whatever this is worth.
Eli O'Riordan? Great guy.
I’d remind people that every US president signed off on this tacitly, or by being a puppet.
Realistically, what could have Rhodesia done? They seem to have done everything right in paper yet they still drew diplomatic hostility from the world.
Not invading Mozambique probably would have been the right move, as invading it is what got the world’s ire refocused on them in the late ‘70s.
Had they dodged that bullet, there’s a better chance they could have held out until Reagan, and unlike Nixon or Thatcher he was reasonably friendly to their interests. The leftists in power of course, namely Wilson and Carter, were awful to Rhodesia
But really the war was close to unwinnable once Portugal fell and the terrorists had Mozambique to operate from
Awesome article! Very revealing. Would love to see something about the CIA evolvement on the fall of Portugal (and therefore, the fall of Angola and Moçambique) in 1974.
Thank you very much!
I’m trying to look into that, but it has been hard to find much good info
I do have one up on their involvement in the Congo, if that interests you
All we ever had to do to "defeat communism" was to give the working class a fair share of the vast wealth their labor created.
But no, Jews, bankers and other pissfreaks had to keep it all for themselves. It is not enough that I am wildly wealthy. Others must suffer.
If what you call the west even existed, then it’s nature is , as you detailed in this article, self destructive and self sabotaging. Every “western” empire has fallen prey to other “western empires”
There is no sense in the west that its nations or empires are bounded by kin. They are in fact ruthless to each other and always end up butchering one another.
Infighting has certainly always been part of it, but generally that has been over the share of resources controlled by each empire, not an attempt to blow everything up
Fighting over this or that duchy in the Middle Ages, for example, or over control of colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, was about benefit. But no one benefited from what’s described here, nor was benefit even the calculus of it. It was about a caustic, destructive ideology that dismantled all of what used to exist, which is quite different
There has been no shortages of “blow everything up” in western history. From the destruction of the Spanish empire, to the proposed partition of Germany, right down to generalplan ost. I agree that prior to the modern age this may not have been the norm, but past the Protestant reformation, any veneer of common unity was worn off.
I highly doubt no one benefited from the specific case your present. The USA hardly does anything that does not benefit it or its elites. The collapse of the colonial empires was fostered by the USA because it did not want competitors. The USA would go on to colonize the third world on its own terms, using a much more refined and effective version of colonialism, the USA viewed these colonial empires as historical dinosaurs that were unproductive and unprofitable.