>build your national identity around loyalty to the empire>secede from the empire when it demands your loyatly for something you disagree with
>>18428800The funny thing is that whites would be in a much better place in Zimbabwe and South Africa if the more moderate whites had their way rather than the hardliners.
>>18428800Black people won the war while white people lost. Whites are losers.
>>18428805>if the more moderate whitesModerate is a extremely relative. More so in this context since it would mean>"still apply a strict racial and social hierachies but put on better PR and throw our shallow platitudes that do nothing to change anything."
>>18428815>t. Rajesh
>>18428800>build your national identity around loyalty to the empire>empire betrays you and throws you to the wolves
>>18428800Loyalty goes both ways, faggot.
>>18429048Exactly, it would have preserved their privileged place for far longer
>>18428800Rhodesia could have been a paradise for western/rich countries tourists
>>18428800>build your marriage on fidelity>divorce when she cheatsI don't see the hypocrisy. Are you one of these people who say "heh, your enemies are trying to kill you, so if you kill them you are no better than they are"?
>>18430786except that you can't kill anyone because you lost
>>18428815>>18428815The Rhodesian Security Forces never experienced a single tactical feat in the entire Rhodesian Bush War.Not one. In other words, they literally never lost against the wogs, even as the USSR, China (and the UK and the rest of the western world) were providing support to them.Ian Smith was not a racist, extremist or hardliner. In fact, I'd consider him one of the most moderate, proficient and eloquent politicians in history. Reading his memoir, most of the book and his struggle is with the British, not the black rebels. Smith had way more fucking patience than he ever should have, I mean the guy was open to and talking with the UK for over 20 years as they were being the slimiest, wealthiest bastards on the planet. The only hardliners in Southern Africa were the National Party and more broadly Apartheid and Afrikaners. Smith said that had the NP not won the 1948 South Africa general election, Southern Africa would be ~50% white and Rhodesia would've survived. Instead, he had Afrikaners as his allies who eventually betrayed him, and Salazar in Portugal was also a great ally who never did betray Rhodesia, though he died and along with him, the Portugese colonial empire.Calling Rhodesia a white supremacist regime is stupid. All the myths told about it in the (((media))) are wrong. Blacks could vote and had a right to the franchise, and at the time Rhodesia gave more rights and political representation to traditional African chiefs and tribes than any other country and it's Indigenous peoples on the planet at the time.You really get to understand what Smith meant by 'The Great Betrayal'. Betrayal. That's what sums up the fall of Rhodesia, and now it's ruins are called Zimbabwe, a poor, food-insecure, economically bleak and politically unstable shithole with no white people, but, and it never achieved black majority rule, because the blacks, and in fact, people there don't rule over everything. It's a dictatorship.
>>18430858They lost. They fought for Globohomo and nog worship in WW2 and reaped the consequences.
>>18430812>>18428815>WE WON CRACKAAnd after the white man left Zimbabwe became a utopia becuase evil whitey was no longer exploiting it.
>>18430863True. Rhodesia and South Africa should have sided with NSDAP Deutschland and reconciled with the Germano-Dutch Boers who also loved der Führer und der Kaiser who supported them against the Judaeo-Anglo, I fully concede this point. This split in the Empire could have been enough to force the British to accept a ceasefire, purge the government of anyone kvetching about it and permit der Führer to conduct his eradication of bolshevism in peace unabated.
>>18430786Not the same thing because the relationship between Britain and Rhodesia was that of a master and a servant. And the servant had pledged undying loyalty to the master.But then forgot all ablut that loyalty when the master started demanding things of them they didn't approve of.
>>18430433Except it doesn't.
>>18430430How is majority rule a "betrayal" ?
>>18430858>Blacks could vote and had a right to the franchise, and at the time Rhodesia gave more rights and political representation to traditional African chiefs and tribes than any other country and it's Indigenous peoples on the planet at the time.Yeah. Rhodesia did give it's African citizens a limited franchise based on property ownership. In a country where most land was held by the white population. Later they gave the African population 16 seats in their legislature, matching the 55 for the white population.
>>18428800>be loyal to Britain>America demands you die>secede from America>Britain calls you a traitor???????????>>18428805The moderates did have their way.if there were more extremists theyd have lasted up to present, like Israel.Apartheid states, and they work extremely well, Israel's HDI is much higher than the diverse democracies like Lebanon and Syria which surround them.Leftists, not even once.
>>18430945but thats not even remotely true, they were loyal to the British Empire, not the liberal government in England.
>>18430786She was definitely bred by multiple black men after the fall of Rhodesia. No way they would have let a pretty white thing like that leave. You know it's true.
>>18430996you didnt hear? they found that the black victors all went to the indians and bred the females and raped the jamboys, leaving the Whites alone.The Whites are big and strong, jews, jeets, nafris, soft, supple, weak, as women should be.you just KNOW Tyrone was going soft while Peter Rhodesia was digging out Kiki Mbunda. black women love dominant males and Rhodesian BVLLs never lost a single battle.
>>18428815Black people got their ass kicked while Whites in the US/UK defeeted Rhodesia.
>>18430993The British empire was the monarch of Britain and that monarch approved of the liberal government of England, which was the center of the empire.
>>18431004>thinks wars and conflicts are CoD lobbies.You aren't gonna make it kid.
>>18430991>Israel's HDI is much higher than the diverse democracies like Lebanon and Syria which surround them.Entirely propped up by the US and guilting investors.>>18430858Rhodieboos are so pathetic. How is it like knowing even white nats in Europe/NA and Apartheid stans laugh at you guys.
>>18430945Britain's pre-WWII government was so different from the 1960s and onward that it may as well have been a completely different entity making any allegiance null and void.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kV5Z5hpeEY
>>18431434>Britain's pre-WWII government was so different from the 1960s and onwardNot even close you loser.
>>18431436Rhodesia really if anything is a private project of Cecil Rhodes for whom it is named and should obey allegiance to his ideology and what he wanted not to the British government. It is RHODESia not BRITAINia. Would Cecil Rhodes like Starmer, Blair and the other idiots running the show since 1960?
>>18431436Actually a good comparison is with Elon Musk. It is like if Musk started his own nation or Mars colony and then the USA expected it to blindly follow any stupid move that they say. It was a private enterprise that was only useful to Britain when it came to claiming mineral rich areas in Africa and setting up an Anglo colony to counter the Boers in the south but then was dropped when it was expedient.
>>18430858>Not one. In other words, they literally never lost against the wogsexcept when they put 1/4 of all the gasoline in the country in one place and let someone shoot it with a rocket launcher lol
>>18431442>It was a private enterprise that was only useful to Britain when it came to claiming mineral rich areas in Africa and setting up an Anglo colony to counter the Boers in the south but then was dropped when it was expedient.You mixed up the timeline a lot.
>>18431438>Rhodesia really if anything is a private project of Cecil Rhodes for whom it is named and should obey allegiance to his ideology and what he wanted not to the British government.BSAC surrendered all governance and rule to the empire.>Would Cecil Rhodes like Starmer, Blair and the other idiots running the show since 1960?Rhodes was a power hungry freak who dragged people into wars and had delusions of grandeur. The guy was obsessed about spreading Anglos worldwide yet never produced a single biological heir. Nor did he produce a dynasty of sorts through his siblings and descendants because of his probable proclivities.
>>18431444>Yes, British mining magnate and politician Cecil Rhodes founded the southern African territory of Rhodesia. Through his British South Africa Company (BSAC), he colonized the region in the 1890s, which was named Rhodesia in his honor in 1895. The territory later split into Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia).Rhodesia the actual colony was started before Boer war to get a foothold for Britain in the region. Rhodesia the independent state in the 1970s is a direct continuation of this original state because they didn’t want to give in to Britain’s demands to get rid of minority rule for the time being (note they were open to the idea much later down the road).
>>18431448Listen, I can’t really change history or anything but is it really so bad for me to merely say that Ian Smith was a better leader than Mugabe was? Mugabe and Smith both existed as pariah states on the world stage yet one was way more humane and ruled the country in a not retarded way.
>>18431451>Rhodesia the independent state in the 1970s is a direct continuation of this original state because they didn’t want to give in to Britain’s demands to get rid of minority rule for the time beingYou can excise the conversion to British imperial rule and the 40+ years of that tenure in the empire. A tenure longer than the total time of BLACKS existence.
>>18431455>Ian Smith was a better leader than Mugabe was?Iam Smith eas total ass and refused to do any sort of reform and was sore loser to the very end. Mugabe was the direct result of those policies and total failure of the Southern Rhodesian and Rgodesian state to engage in key modernization and land reforms policies.>yet one was way more humane and ruled the country in a not retarded way.Lmao Ian wasn't remotely humane.
You would think that blecks would have dealt with Israel by now, but the arabs can't manage it.
>>18431037are you mentally ill? genuinely asking
>>18430858You're a faggot. If you looked anywhere other than Wikipedia articles that source from Rhodieboo fanfiction where they kill 6 trillion blacks in a single engagement and only losing 1 white guy from a toe infection you'd know there were numerous incidents where guerrillas defeated the Rhodesian Army in ground engagements and slaughtered or overran entire bases of them. Nevertheless, you have the Gen X boomerbrained view of war where it's about how many insurgents or "enemies" you kill, not about achieving your strategic objectives.
>>18431481That and the Rhodesian forces had man firendly fire accidents due to limited training or using foreign recruits.
Rhodeasia was doomed to fail.Sanctions prevented Rhodesia from importing or even making their own complex machinery. By 1979, alot of cars were leftovers from early 1960s, and were getting cannibalized for parts like yank tanks in Cuba.Things like combat aircraft were aging, and there was nothing to replace them with. Yes, they could produce smaller less complex things like the FAL rifle, but complex machinery was impossible. They did smuggle in 3 boeing 720s in 1973, but that was a one time thing. Big fuel depot boom boom in 1978, made things even worse for logistics. Even by 1976, Ian Smith accepted there was going to be majority rule soon, but he wanted to buy as much time as possible to find a moderate.
>>18431434>Britain's pre-WWII government was so different from the 1960s and onward that it may as well have been a completely different entityActually, it was the same entity that existed when Rhodesia was founded. The monarchy approved of it too. It was a legal continuum and there was no break.>making any allegiance null and void.Oh so it's only loyalty when you feel like it?
>>18431469Are you retarded? Whites are inferior. If you weren't, you wouldn't have gotten dominated by Jews, non-whites and leftists so easily. Just get over it faggot.
>>18431767If you are married to a sweet woman who turns into a remorseless bitch due to influence from her corrupt whore friends then yes the loyalty is gone, not by the husband but by the whore bitch that replaced her. If you don't understand this then you are simply a cuck who deserves the nanny state you can't even say a joke and not go to jail for, cuck.
>>18428800The only fault they did in Africa was not do the same they did to natives in north America. Hell even bleaching like the Spaniards did would've have at least make them somewhat united.
>>18431819The relationship between Britain and Rhodesia was not a relationship between equal partners but that of a master and servant.And please explain why demanding majority rule was a betrayal.
>>18430872>betraying the empire is a display of loyalty to the empire This is some dialectical mindfuckery you can only expect from socialists.
>>18431795it's true, we are superior in our abilities but one fatal flaw, toxic empathy, makes us completely cuck out like the example in your webm
>>18430865Rhodesia had amazing casualty ratios but whites were so few in number there that they were completely unsustainable... for the Rhodesian sideand that's before you get into the impact on migration, because English-speaking whites had a lot of options better than "conscript fighting in a war zone" even if they believed in the cause
>>18430991Israel has the population base to be somewhat viable, at least internally Apartheid/Jim Crow can work for a while when you're half the population, when you're like 5-10% it's completely unsustainable
>>18431481>you'd know there were numerous incidents where guerrillas defeated the Rhodesian Army in ground engagements and slaughtered or overran entire bases of them. Such as?
>>18430945Britain broke this paternal relationship when they declared they were working towards "majority rule" where black people would inevitably vote in a despot like Mugabe, evict white people and steal decades of hard work to develop the Rhodesian economy. Rhodesia was no longer an imperial dominion, thus the 19th century virtues longer applied.Of course from a leftist bioleninist perspective this is just great. In theory without "colonial exploitation" black Zimbabweans would be able to build their own nation and enhance their fortunes. In reality black Zimbabweans in the current year are now actually poorer than they were under Rhodesia. In reality democracy isn't always the best system to ensure liberty and prosperity. If anything you should fault Britain for being too eager to abandon Africa to its fate rather than stay a few decades more to develop a civil service and national army as they had done in India, but of course these subtle nuances occupy less space in your mind than "WYPIPO OUT NOW", so now Zimbabwe is one of the most poorest impoverished tyrannical spaces on earth yearning for the retvrn of the h'white man.
>>18430786>>18431819The marriage metaphor is flawed. A more accurate one would be if your partner in crime wanted to give up the criminal life.
>>18431874>rather than stay a few decades more to develop a civil serviceWhat makes you think the White Rhodesians would have allowed that?Also why do you pretend that the problems that Zimbabwe faces now are a result it not being Rhodesia, rather than it having been Rhodesia (where education and economic opportunities for Africans were systematically restricted to be inferior to the White Rhodesians) for decades?You speak of Leninists but your logic is the exact same as a Leninist's on Russia today: pretending that Russia's current problems are solely the result of it ceasing to be Soviet Union, instead of it having been the Soviet Union for decades.
>>18431924Cope post. We all see that African shortcomings are the result of Africans themselves particularly their IQ and behavioral deficits.You lost. Liberalism lost. Leftism lost. The world cannot in fact be reduced to economic conditions.Latter Marxism was wrong in its fundamental assumption all human groups react predictably and identically to material conditions.What evidence would you need to see to admit Zimbabwe’s shithole status is a result of blacks being shithole people?You need IQ data? We have IQ data.You need behavior trend data? We have that.What exactly do you need to admit the Chuds were right all along?
>>18431970>people are barred form higher education>they end up being dumbWow
>>18431859>unsustainableUnsustainable? They could have sustained 10x the casualties idiot. Their casualties were incredibly low throughout the entire war with most of their engagements seeing zero losses to manpower.Rhodesia’s trouble came from lack of materiel.You don’t even know what you’re talking about.>>18431863No they didn’t. Israel began fighting a genocidal war with 1/10th the population the mandate. They won. They built a majority jewish state and they today exert direct influence over a region where they are outnumbered 100:1.Israel has worse odds than Rhodesia.You’re coping because you, for ideological reasons, can not allow a justification for Rhodesia to exist.You have already lost the moral round as everyone sees blacks are hypocritical sociopaths.Now you’re trying to spin the “well it just wasn’t viable” angle.It was totally viable.Whatever “view” you hold is irrational anti-life mysticism as is every variant of leftism and liberalism.Leftism - Destructive, hypocritical, and filled with delusion and mysticism, it is the African of ideology.>>18431795We had a generation who had zero hardship.When that generation passes you’re all dead.We have the most nukes. Most chemical weapons. Most advanced technology.What China is doing to blacks today, we can do on a global scale and much faster.Will you then admit we are your natural betters?>>18431457>YOU MUST REFORM SAARwhat? Why?>dey deserve itWho? What? Violent idiots who couldn’t build a functional state deserve what? The benefits of things they could never create?No. They deserve the Gaza treatment at best.>>18431494Rhodesia wasn’t doomed to fail. Rhodesia never failed. They were sanctioned from the outside. External forces defeated them.Was Israel doomed to fail? Well why didn’t they?
>>18431971Education doesn’t make someone smart, moron. You think food comes from the store too? Gasoline comes from gas stations?You don’t understand second and third order cause and effect.Lacking the genes which confer an IQ above 87 is what makes Zimbaboons what they are.You understand?
>>18431448wasn't he a fag?
>>18430865WE WUZ types think that Africans are capable of exploiting the land resources but big bad Whitey literally made off with all of it like some Hamburglar emptying out a vault. Meanwhile after thousands of years, Whites are magically able to do it to land they have been sitting on in Europe for thousands of years. How could they have 'emptied' Africa when they were only present in Africa for mere decades by comparison?Ancient Yakubian magics they stole from them?
>>18431974Casualties are irrelevant if you do not have enough men to begin with, and the Rhodesians didn't. They were able to decisively win almost every engagement, sure, but there were just too few of them to engage all of the guerillas pouring in from across the border. And the ones who slipped through the cracks to run wild in the countryside unabated were only increasing in number as the years went by.Lack of materiel was much less of an issue, before South Africa started cutting them off it was hardly even an issue, and South Africa only did so because they correctly saw that 1v20 was completely unwinnable in the long run.
