post Rhodesia shit
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
post Rhodesia shit
>>29304619
>>29304746
topkeks.jpg
What is this, a White paradise for ants?
>>29304619
Rhodiesa? More like Memesia.
>>29304746
>getting it wrong
Faggot
>You will never be a Rhodesian
Good night sweet Rhodesia, you were too good for this world.
Get over it.
Mugabe is going to be pushing up daisies soon, let that comfort you.
What is it about Rhodesia that is so fascinating?
I'm neither white nor black, but the topic of Rhodesia is just interesting to me.
>>29307845
FAL's and short shorts used by a pretty top-tier military in what was basically "See, Africa Can Be Nice: The Country"
>>29307894
It is truly tragic how fucking long Mugabe has lived.
Why is Mugabe so racist?
What happened to him to make him like that?
Did he legit have bad experiences with whites, or is he racist for no known reason, or is it a mask he wears for the parties sake?
>>29308095
He probably thinks that he's doing what the blacks secretly wanted, when he's actually just crazy as fuck
>>29308095
Communism does that to people
>>29308095
Soviet-style dinduism, or "how to make gommunism your moral blank check for ethnic cleansing"
>>29308031
its finally coming to an end
>>29304619
Fucking rhodieboos can't even make threads.
>trannies with babypoop fals ebig :Ddd yei racism :Dd
SA > Rhodesia
>>29309738
And isn't it someone just as shite taking over?
>>29304619
Amidoin it rite?
>>29309745
most likely
Somewhat related: I'm trying to do an R1 build, any places I can find actual parts or reproductions?
>>29311289
Also I'll post what little Rhodie stuff I have
>>29309743
>butthurt PTR fag detected
>>29307439
>>29304619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0oYgUI9LMw&feature=youtu.be
>>29304619
Fuck off cunts.
T. Son of former Rhodesian soldier
>>29311477
is that a rhodie painted BAR?
>>29309743
this >>29311330
my original rhodesian flag
>Rhodesia is a particular topic of obsession at "/k/", a message board about weaponry on Internet community 4chan. Many of the participants on the board share racist and white separatist views.
source :
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2015/0618/Why-would-an-American-white-supremacist-be-fond-of-Rhodesia-video
>>29311763
Very nice!
>>29311849
>>29311865
thanks took me a while to finally get one its the (white)pride of my flag collection
>>29311712
Not a BAR, it's a FN MAG.
>>29311929
>FN MAG
thanks fampai
>>29311654
Prove it, fag.
>>29311940
its hilarious that blackface was a viable infiltration tactic
>>29312283
TIL white dudes live in Africa (aside from South Africa)
Unless they're British or something?
>>29312394
terrs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eland
>>29312435
Rhodesians, much like South Africa, have heavy British heritage.
Was their actually black people on the side of Rhodesia? I've never notice not seen people say otherwise.
>>29312593
Quite a few actually
>>29312611
I only ask because you never really see pictures of them. Eh it was a different time I guess.
>>29312593
Pic related
>>29312593
>Was their actually black people on the side of Rhodesia?
>Was there people who also happened to be black wanted to better their country?
What kind of question is that? Of course there was, they fought and died protecting the same Rhodesian the so called "racists" did.
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233953
This forum has a lot of good pics
>>29311849
Where are the lies
>>29312593
Rhodesian military was something like 80% black and non-conscription
>>29304619
How about a large and growing playlist of Rhodesia videos?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSM_02Uc6IUc1ad0MrcRaydJGsjZZf1CW
>>29312625
>>29312593
Most pictures posted here are from the Rhodesian SAS. Blacks and whites both fought together in the regular military.
>>29311849
The bullshit in that article is sickening.
Can someone post the rhodesian TOTALLY NOT applejack?
Something I've always wondered about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo
Where did Rhodesia get the DC-8? Air Rhodesia didn't have them. It was possibly Affretair or CargOman (possibly the same aircraft was transferred between the two, but if that's the case it happened in 1977 so I'm not sure which one it'd have been at the time of Operation Dingo), but then where did they obtain their DC-8 from without being caught?
>>29315479
Maybe from South Africa? Rhodesia got a lot of their stuff from South Africa, R1s included.
>>29312631
It's a legitimate question, because there seems to be a lot of propaganda floating around the internet that Rhodesia was a racist country founded on racist concepts. If one were to have some doubts, they'd ask questions.
I know people got the wrong idea because a few white supremacists happened to wear the Rhodesian flag, but that's how bullshit generally starts.
It's kinda like how the Gadsden flag is regarded as a racist symbol because the Tea Party used it, even though it's a perfectly legitimate military flag with a legitimate meaning that has nothing to do with race.
>>29316081
>Rhodesia was a racist country founded on racist concepts
come now, it was pretty racist, and while not directly founded on racist concepts, UDI was necessary to prevent majority rule, which in turn is a "racist" view (even if it's also ultimately probably the right one since majority-elections did fuck everything up, although at least some of this was probably down to voter intimidation etc.)
HOWEVER, and this is the most important thing: living standards were significantly better than modern zimbabwe, probaly even for the most "oppressed" blacks, and they were probably less (or equally, still no loss) oppressed then than they are now.
so even though i'm of the understand rhodesia was racist and that racism is a bad thing 99% of the time, it's acceptable to "trade off" racism for the significantly better living standards, etc. (although hindsight is of course 20/20)
>>29309752
his arms are so small
>>29308095
Seriously he's a fucking piece of shit, not only does he treat whites like shit he also literally genocided a tribe (with help from the north koreans) because of some bullshit political issue he had.
>>29316316
I'll admit racism was present in Rhodesia. However, the last Rhodesian thread I lurked upon has shown that whites and blacks weren't segregated in the streets or in the markets. Their military also wasn't segregated (Excluding the Rhodesian SAS, whites only). Not to mention that tribal leaders also had automatic seats in Parliament, their tribal lands were secured, and that after Ian Smith's term, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had a native president with both white and Black votes. I wouldn't consider it racist if most of the population don't know how to run a government until further educated
>>29316597
Wait, wait, wait, source on that north Koreans part?
>>29315180
Sure
>>29317212
That's cute. Poorly done, but cute.
>>29316727
that's the problem, people have dubbed that whole "running the government until better educated" thing paternalistic racism. Of course, once the racism word comes out any and all logical discourse is de-railed because "omg you're a racist".
>>29317566
Noice, also where are those Combat footage .webm's?
>>29317566
>>29311763
Fuck, I just realized how similar the Rhodesian and Canadian flags are. Which isn't too surprising in hindsight given a lot of national flags are pretty similar.
>>29317661
>Canadian flag
>a fucking leaf
>>29306959
Step up.
>>29317566
>>29311763
Where do y'all get your flags?
>>29318014
Amazon
>you will never own an AR brand AR
>>29318286
I can't find any. I assume you got them before Tactical Bowl Cut accidentally a church
I'm sure someone's making 'em somewhere else
>>29318323
Wrong thread? Thanks for the bump though.
>>29317566
>two bottles of Windex
I guess you really like shooting nuggets, huh?
>>29319016
Using windex for corrosive ammo is a meme.
Just use a couple of litres of warm/hot water.
>>29319028
Then what's the Windex for?
Don't fucking say windows, because it's on a fucking gun bench.
>>29312047
That dude in the shorts did not skip fuckin leg day hot damn.
>>29319054
Windows
>tfw you'll never slot floppies in the sun
Why live?
>>29318331
ebay 'rhodesian flag 3x5'
>>29309745
If its his wife, then she will be even worse.
>>29311849
>Christian Science Monitor
>>29321773
.
Fuck, that's sexy.
>>29312593
One of the oldest and most storied regiments in the Rhodesian Army was the Royal African Rifles. They were a black unit lead by white officers who fought in Egypt and Malaya in WWII.
>>29320624
>>29312593
One of their main strategies was to actively recruit insurgents that they captured.
>>29324858
HAHAHA, no it wasn't.
They were known to immediately extract information from captured rebels and being good at it - you're fucking retarded, it's not like they were given an AK and told to fight too.
>>29324877
"Infiltrating an all-black area with white soldiers posed an obvious problem of appearance. Fortunately, the SB collected captured Terrs, and several of them went to work for the Rhodesians. Loyalty was the initial worry for SB and the army. Over the years, more often than not, the captured men proved to be very reliable in working against their former comrades. This is a subject that is often perplexing to the modern mind in our GWOT..." -Dan Tharp, Africa Lost: Rhodesia's COIN Killing Machine
>>29321627
Because soon you can be a mercenary in the Swedish race war and shoot mudslimes with G3s
>>29324963
That wasn't a main strategy; hell black face was a more common tactic. You're also replying to his post as if it's the main reason, so stop.
>>29311712
Great, the crossdressing faggot is here.
>>29311289
DSA has a R1 cut FAL reciever
>>29316081
Let's be fair, it was pretty fucking racist, but the way to fix that wasn't to blow the whole thing up and go full retard like mugabe did.
>>29317212
>Now I know y'all are fightin' a war but why are we killin' so many zebras?
>>29325607
The UN got involved. They refused any government plan without directly proportial democracy. Rhodies really just wanted something like small state rights for the white minority. That is a serious place at the table and garunteed parliment seats.
So is Rhodesia to /k/ as Nazi Germany is to /pol/?
>>29325635
Yes.
>>29325635
>>29325647
Rhodesia is to /k/ as Gensokyo is to /jp/.
>mfw I decide to actually research Rhodesia thinking its Nazi Germany: Redux
>mfw I read more and more about it.
>mfw I realize it was Africa's only hope for real civilization
>mfw I realize what the commie kaffirs did over there by force and UN backing they're doing to the US using social media.
I weep for what could have....what should have been.
I weep knowing now that Apartheid was a necessary evil.
>>29326606
>killing people via social media
what?
>>29326606
rhodesia wasn't even an apartheid nation anon, they simply had education requirements for voting. The nation worked with black tribal leaders and was a pretty direct meritocracy regarding politics, meaning educated africans were in positions of power. they even were planning to turn over the nation to majority black rule after building the political and social structures necessary to keep the nation thriving. But the brits wanted a communist backed international terrorist who coerce whole towns at gunpoint to vote for him in a sham election to be president for life. Sure ZANU lost every engagement against the 75% enlisted 30% officer corps black Rhodesian army, but thats just because da poor freedom fighters were the underdog and not a loose mob of rapists and murderers from the far corners of africa and their kidnapped child soldiers.
>>29326740
this
>>29326696
Silencing opposition Anon. Silencing opposition. Jesus, give the guy a break he just had an epiphany.
>>29326740
>they simply had education requirements for voting
>what is the colour bar
>what is the land tenure act
>educational requirement for voting is actually an income requirement which was set high enough to disenfranchise the vast majority of blacks
but... but... they had black soldiers so they aren't racist.
>>29327420
>educational requirement for voting is actually an income requirement which was set high enough to disenfranchise the vast majority of blacks
So you're telling me that a majority of African Blacks are inadept to get educated? Get a load of this guy fám
>>29327493
>inadept
wat
if you're saying what i think you are saying, the response is that the rhodesian educational system was also segregated to deny blacks any chance at anything beyond menial wage labor
>>29327420
>Letting blacks vote is a good thing
Sure worked out great for them in the end, right?...
Oh wait
>>29327581
Refusing to face the facts and continuing white rule for another decade thus contributing to the radicalization of the resistance sure worked out great for them in the end, right?
It takes absolutely zero 'moral courage' to demand gibsmedat.
How obscene it is to witness mattoids attempt to dress up their desire for power as a demonstration of holiness.
If the afro-coms actually wanted was freedom, they could have as much freedom as they like in jungle, just like all the other autonomous tribes. No, what they really wanted was power, power to extract capital from the rhodies.
Which is exactly what happened afterwards, with exactly the sort of results we could expect; from the bread basket of the continent, to just another shithole amongst shitholes. Progress!
>>29327947
>No, what they really wanted was power, power to extract capital from the rhodies.
Oh, the irony.
>what was white rule
The best thing rhodesia could have done would have been to just ignore blacks and leave them to their own devices or fates.
Whites were only like, what, 3% of the actual population. The actual country of Rhodesia only really extended as far as a network of plantations and urban centers. Beyond that it was simply a 'proposition', lines on a map.
What real reason did rhodies have to be there? Their farms? Their mines? The fact that their fathers before them had also lived that land? Then *only those things* should be their concern. Just separate the spheres and don't bother with what goes on outside your little bubble; the extent to which you bother with what goes on outside is the extent necessary to keep what goes on outside from bothering what goes on inside.
Ian smiths government talking about eventual integration or proportionality as a goal was a huge mistake; if they never actually intended for such its still as bad for the same reason, since it puts the idea and expectation in peoples minds, giving your enemy an easy justification to use for himself.
You should not think of aboriginal people as a human resource to integrate or exploit, they are a part of the environment, and should be regarded as such, something you work *around*.
>>29328139
>implying the rhodesian economy isn't totally dependent on exploited black labor
>>29327979
The surplus capital of Rhodesia was produce by hwhites, with the hwhites gone, Zimbabwe does not produce surplus capital. Rhodesia was an Anglo invention, and as a proportion of the population had very little hand I'm the production of its capital (the case of america played out in similar ways).
>>29328178
It wasn't.
>>29328220
>very little hand
The black labor that produced the capital is kept extraordinarily cheap via a system of political, economic and educational segregation. Political disenfranchisement is the cornerstone of keeping that capital in white hands, so your argument is ass backwards.
>>29328268
>3% of the population can produce a majority of economic output in a semi-developed economy
Hah.
>>29328282
This is a power relationship; who needs who more?
Whites don't need blacks, but blacks very much need whites (if you define 'need' as; 'having nice things like clean running water, 24 hour electricity, rule of law, and trains running on time').
Whites could get on just fine without blacks. I would return the courtesy and say blacks can and should get on just fine by themselves too, in their own way at least.
Never the less, blacks were available and willing to work for peanuts, which is a prior condition, and so shortsighted economical motivations resulted in the needless collision of two peoples who really should have no business living in the same spaces, much like the importation of indentured labor to the new world.
>>29328304
Just so.
Even in highly developed countries, only something like 20% of the population is 'essential' to the conduct of its productive economy, never mind a situation like an African colony.
>>29328422
Kinda curious on your pseudo-economic theory, so which 20% of the US economy is essential?
>never mind in a situation like an African colony
>vastly more labor intensive than a first-world economy
>not dependent on the blacks that produce said labor
Yeah, yours is definitely pseudo-economcs.
>>29311330
sauce
>>29328478
My economic theory tells me that these debates are but insignificant mental circle jerks among feeble ape creatures as capital itself slowly becomes more and more autonomous and self sufficient, until it shall ultimately become completely unmoored for the concerns or preferences of its creators, and hence be free to dispose of them, if it has the power.
Imagine the future, a network of bots selling each other derivatives, forever!
>>29328567
>dodging the question: the post
>>29328646
>>29307845
It's because the Bush War was fucking awesome.
>FALs, G3s, FN MAGs, Uzis, Stens, Brens
>Vampires, C-47s, Canberra bombers
>Cold War bullshit and Commie killing
>>29311462
are these supposed to be prisoners?
because those are belts they're wearing
>>29316081
Rhodesia absolutely was a racist country, and was absolutely founded on racist concepts (and anti freedom, anti self determination).
>>29328694
>being conscripted into losing a war to defend a racist regime that was obviously untenable
>so called "free" first-world countries are so hostile to freedom and self-determination that resistance groups ended up getting support from the communists
the hypocrisy, it is too much
>>29328867
congrats on not knowing anything that happened in Rhodesia
This post screams willful ignorance
I won't deny that they had racist policies, but half way through they completely capitulated to equality and they still wouldn't stop pushing until Rhodesia was dead because "fuck whitey"
Commie Zimbabwefag detected
>>29328905
>implying there could be equality if racist Rhodesia existed
topkek
>>29328867
You're stupid, the west collaborated and was complicit in antagonizing Rhodesia.
Don't you find it ever so interesting that these southern britbonger and nederbonger countries were safe and secure (no doubt being 'oppressive shitlords' all the while) for more than a hundered years, and yet they did not actually get revolutions until, quite coincidentally I'm sure, 'international opinion' turned into opposition?
Revolutions don't get started from 'outrage over inequality'. They often justify themselves that way, but they never start that way.
Revolution is virtually always a product of weak government combined with international interference. The strong governments of Louis XIV and Nicholas I were secure while the weak reign of Louis XVI and Nicholas II resulted in collapse.
The American Antebellum South had fabulously wealthy plantation owners living in the same houses as enslaved human beings, in many cases outnumbered 20 to 1. The history of slave revolts over a 200 year period was virtually unheard of.
No 'oppressive regime' in history ever got revolutioned, it was always their soft reform minded successors.
>>29329174
Oh my.
International interference didn't instigate the French Revolution, it happened in spite of just about every nation in Europe trying to put a stop to it. As for weak government, how exactly is years of punitive taxation (which is partially responsible for the revolution) demonstrative of weakness?
The Russian czar sealed his own demise by involving Russia in a disastrous European land war in a time where anti-monarchical ideas were peaking. That is not "international interference", it's his own poor judgement.
Also, "the west" did not antagonize Rhodesia. The UN sanctions were widely ignored by many nations, including the US, Germany, Japan and most importantly, South Africa. The British drove the sanctions, probably because Ian Smith told the Brits to fuck off.
You assign ulterior motives to anti-colonialists. Is there really any political situation where people don't have agendas and sides? But that hardly negates the main cause of inequality, considering that is literally the main rallying cry for every anti-colonialist movement in the 20th century.
In any case, I find it amusing that you find the relatively contemporary ideas of equality and self-determination to be "international interference", and that people who side with these ideas to be "soft". Yours is a mindset that is over a century antiquated, but hardly quaint.
>>29329138
2/5 rebuttal
>>29329492
hey it was in response to a 0/5 post from a madfag.
>>29329398
Orwell once wrote that to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. Experience has taught me to modulate that is necessary, its because people spend a lot of effort *not* to see what's in front of their nose to begin with.
Louis XIV did not get revolutioned, reform minded Louis XIV got revolutioned.
>That is not "international interference", it's his own poor judgement.
A whole continents worth of countries got involved in a disastrous war. How interesting Russia's unique case is then. Nicholas I did not get revolutioned, reform minded Nicholas II got revolutioned.
In 1989 basically no one who was anyone predicted the collapse of the soviet union, save in the airy general sense of 'communism always eats itself eventually'.
Its hard to understate how blindside every one was by 'the great political mess-up'. As far as anyone could tell or was concerned, the USSR was shaping up to be a thousand year reich, a wonderfully eternal rival (often treated with suspicious amounts of congeniality).
Until suddenly, it wasn't. Not Stalin, not Kruschev, not Brezhnev, but reform minded Gorbachev, that ultimately destabilized and ushered in the end of the soviet union.
>The UN sanctions were widely ignored by many nations,
You betray your own position, that *there were in sanctions to begin with*. You also play fast and lose with the definition of 'nation' (or you assume a 19th model of national unity amongst different factions in pursuing a national interest that does not really apply to late 20th or 21st century geopolitics).
Obviously transnational companies were interested, as they always are, in gaining access to markets. *Political* pressure however mounted. Henry Kissinger himself got involved to demand that ian smith surrender to communist rule (which he latter regretted as one of his greatest mistakes, but hey, no use crying over fallow fields or decapitated bodies!)
>>29329398
>relatively contemporary ideas of equality and self-determination to be "international interference", and that people who side with these ideas to be "soft".
Because they are, and they are. Wilson started the hip new trend (same as the old trend) with his call to make the world safe for communism. In past times they called it 'spreading the cross by sword' (or spreading islam by the sword, as the case may be). There are few things people like more than to feel holier than thou, and few sources of validation greater than the thought that everyone else thinks the same ideas as you. In recent times these threads have recombined in a far more perverse manner to produce whole new classes of moral crusaders dedicated to imposing chaotic ideologies across the world, by hook or by crook.
How many nations so far has the us flushed down the toilet in the name of 'exporting communism'?
(What's that? You mean he said 'democracy'? Haha! democracy and communism are not necessarily opposed or unrelated concepts at all, in practice you can hardly tell the difference!)
The most recent state department puppy in the middle east known as the 'Arab spring' is a particularly egregrious example of the chaos introduced by demotism ruining everything (may George Soros rot forever). In past times when a powerful conspirator wished to pursue vaguely defined and surely ominous agendas to undermine competitors or enrich themselves, they usually at least took a somewhat long view of things (such as 'the great game' between Britain and Russia, or Britain and Austria). Nowadays they can't even figure out their own self-interest, let alone their peoples interest. You get episodes like arming Isis terrorists to topple gadaffi, then wondering where all these isis terrorists are coming from (or where all these rapefugees from Africa or Arabia are coming from).
The quality of our shadowy overlords has really declined as of late.
>>29330094
>Louis XIV did not get revolutioned, reform minded Louis XIV got revolutioned.
Never mind the catalyst for the revolution had nothing to do with any of that. No, let's blame his "softness". Not to mention his "reforms" consisted of the abolition of labor conscription, outlawing torture, a small reduction in taxation, and things of that nature. The horror, he has gone completely soft.
>A whole continents worth of countries got involved in a disastrous war. How interesting Russia's unique case is then. Nicholas I did not get revolutioned, reform minded Nicholas II got revolutioned.
Maybe the fact that most of those countries involved weren't run by an autocratic monarch had something to do with it. In fact Austria-Hungary was dealing with their own anti-monarchical movements at the time and probably would have dissolved even without the war. And by the way, Nicholas II's reforms were non-existent, since he had dismal relationships with the reform minded Duma. So that's another lie from you.
>Not Stalin, not Kruschev, not Brezhnev, but reform minded Gorbachev, that ultimately destabilized and ushered in the end of the soviet union.
You talk as if another Politburo hard-man could have preserved the disintegrating mess that was the USSR. Pro-tip: no one could have.
>You betray your own position, that *there were in sanctions to begin with*.
Are you saying there were no sanctions? Because that is demonstrably untrue, regardless of your gibberish about the definition of "nation".
>which he latter regretted as one of his greatest mistakes
Source, citation, etc. Kissinger made plenty of mistakes and he isn't exactly the apologetic sort.
>>29330104
>Wilson started the hip new trend (same as the old trend) with his call to make the world safe for communism
Gee willikers, that's what the League of Nations was for? Wilson's Anglophilic intervention was really to save the Soviet Union (which didn't even exist yet when the US joined)? Who knew! Neat fact: Wilson himself was a vicious racist and would have been an ardent Rhodiepoo if he were alive.
>How many nations so far has the us flushed down the toilet in the name of 'exporting communism'?
Well let's count up the number of times the US government overthrew another country's government and replaced it with a socialist or communist ruler. That would be zero. See, as stupid as the US is when it comes to foreign policy, "exporting communism" is one of the few things it isn't guilty of.
>You mean he said 'democracy'
What are you, a high schooler? Nobody believes the US spreads democracy. You're not some erudite sage because you saw through the most transparent lie in these times.
>The most recent state department puppy in the middle east known as the 'Arab spring'
I would honestly like to hear you explain how the 'Arab Spring' is really the exportation of communism.
>>29327420
>literally what the founding fathers of the USA intended
>falling for the sufferage meme
>hurr i need to be educated to vote, which disenfranchises black and white alike below a certain socioeconomic level, but das racis because most of the population is black bruh
>hurr I can't vote, I sure wish I was forced to vote every year at gunpoint for a communist backed "president" for life. I sure love feeling the boot of "democracy" on my neck!
mugbe plz, don't you have some white farmers to beg to ignore the whe whole white genocide thing to stave off a quarter of the zimbabwe population dying this year?
>>29330295
Its not simply a question of what they do, but what they *don't* do.
Communist China has always been assiduous in prosecuting 'civil disobedience' for what it is, civil disobedience, ie, an explicit threat to sovereignty, to imperium.
And despite all the catastrophes and horrors communist China inflicted upon itself, communist China is still with us today (and evidently now understands how to pursue a national self-interest more adroitly than the ideologically blinded us).
If you tolerate your enemies, odds are they don't return the same courtesy and destroy you. I'm sure you can understand that at least.
Hold up.
OP are you an iFunny fag?
>>29327837
>how evil of them for being the goddamn jewel of africa!
>sure they had mass public support, but they were evilly being whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite! You can't do that in africa bruh ;_;
>sure ZANU was a recognised international terrorist organization that used child soldiers, foreign war criminals from all over africa, and forced people in the sticks to fight for ZANU or have their families killed but... wait I was going somewhere with this
>sure ZANU was a recognised international terrorist organization but when the UN and the slimey limeys let him on the ballot... terrorists took over the polling places and forced people to vote for mugbe and his croneys, removing the bipartisan racially mixed legitimately elected government of rhodesia but... shit I had a point i was trying to make
>yfw sanctioned pariah state rhodesia was literally one hundred trillion times better than zimbabwe
>yfw mugbe has committed genocide on whole native cultures in his country
>yfw mugbe is asking for the evil white man to gib trillions in food aid to stave off mass famine to the tune of a quarter of the zimbabwean population dying of starvation this year
>yfw mugbe is asking for the white farmers who avoided lynching to ignore the whole kill whitey thing and fix Rhode.... zimbabwe agriculture
All this arguing is angels dancing on pin heads, in the end the simple brute fact is that demographics are destiny. White rule is prosperous, black rule is shit.
If you actually hold the hedonic satisfaction of black people as your ultimate political object for some unknown reason, you should be calling for colonialism to come back as soon as possible.
And that's the bottom line.
>>29311849
How does pointing out that the antiwhite black communist government ruined one of the only successful nations to ever been on the African continent racist?
It's a fact, it happened and the people who live there suffer because of it. The white farmers had to deal with government sponsored hate crimes and we are racist for thinking that it's not a very good government?
Fuck man I hate niggers as much as the next guy but that's not what this is about.
>>29330359
Ah, so yours is an explicitly fascist ideology that is totally incompatible with liberty and freedom.
Well, consider that all first-world countries today are, without exception, not run that way and are "still with us today". So apparently *not* butchering your "enemies" (real or otherwise, mostly the latter) isn't as much of a death sentence as much as you'd like to believe.
>If you tolerate your enemies, odds are they don't return the same courtesy and destroy you. I'm sure you can understand that at least.
Well shit, by that logic East Germany should still be around. Oh wait...
>>29330346
>missing the point entirely
Don't you have some Southern black church to shoot up?
>>29330484
Blaming a pharmaceuticaly induced psychopath on the supporters of a former African nation
>>29330094
I think you mean Louis XVI. Not to be pedantic, but there's a huge difference. Also, most of Louis XVI's reforms came after the Revolution was already underway. If you make reforms at the moment of crisis, you'll fail. The point is to make them sooner before it reaches that stage, or never at all. Your examples are terrible, to be quite frank.
>>29330474
Your idea of freedom is incomplete. In order to solve social coordination problems, there are two major mechanisms; force, and mind control.
All systems use these factors to greater or lesser proportion. In a system that uses popular governance, ie rule by consensus, *depends* on consensus to remain stable. Every election or vote is basically a civil war in miniature; to prevent symbolic violence from turning into actual violence, you must use other means of coercion. Hence, there must be mind control, ideas like 'freedom of speach' or 'freedom of thought' are incompatible with such a paradigm. Freedom of speach is only possible if your speach does not matter.
Obedience through mind control is a horror, where the people themselves become their own jailors. Obedience under implied threat of force is much more civilized and suited to the human psyche, itallows for a much more flexible polity, no one is trying to fool anyone.
>>29330484
>hurr but they're white.... IN AFRICA. they must be racis ;_;
south africa was an apartheid nation, rhodesia was not. They had no race based laws prohibiting voting or the holding of public office, just classical democratic stipulations on who had the right to vote.
Don't you have some UN food aid to beg for Mugbe? Get off the internet and appoint someone not crazy to be your successor before you finally punch your ticket to hell.
>maybe a nice white guy who'll salvage the 30 years of famine, death, and suffering you've caused.
>>29330549
Well then, good thing I never defended western representative politics as "freedom" in any way, shape or form. What is clearly obvious is that you have disavowed any sort of aspiration towards liberty and freedom, your outlook is decidedly unfree, and therefore ought to be dismissed outright by any civilized person in this day and age.
>Obedience under implied threat of force is much more civilized and suited to the human psyche
So, ignoring your edgelordism disguised as psycho-babble, why are totalitarian regimes so fleeting, not just in recent times, but in general? Why is control via the mind so much more successful than outright physical terror?
>>29330568
>south africa was an apartheid nation, rhodesia was not
Naw, they just had all the legal aspects of apartheid. Just don't call it apartheid.
>no race based laws prohibiting voting
>just a massively prohibitive income level check that happens to disenfranchise blacks stuck with a deliberately poor educational system
I will put this into a context that non-retarded /k/unts should understand.
DC's handgun ban was declared unconstitutional because it was legally considered a "de facto ban". As in, it was not banned outright, but the barrier to handgun ownership was so high it was practically impossible to obtain one.
Similarly, the Hughes Amendment can be considered a "de facto" MG ban because it prices out the vast majority of gun owners.
So Rhodesia's voting system was in fact, a de facto racial ban. Get it?
>>29330637
Man you throw buzzwords around like they are going out of style.
If you truly desire true freedom, you must be willing to pay the penalties of freedom. To be free to act but not bear consequences of actions is rather a privilege, an expression of power, something reserved for a ruling class.
I believe freedom is generally a great principle to implement for general society. The great utility of freedom is that it is ultimately a socially darwinistic. If you asked the average man on the street to please select everyone in the country you would like dead, if you please, chances are good you'll get a bad choice. Better to let freedom sort it out instead.
If you truly love freedom, you must be willing to accept this. elsewise, you are simply one renseeker amongst the hordes of others throughout history who appropriate the rhetoric of freedom in order to gain privileges.
>why are totalitarian regimes so fleeting, not just in recent times, but in general?
Your history is weak, feudalism proved to be the most lasting and anti-fragile form of social organism in history. In ancient times no less a commentator than Aristotle observed how democracies often swiftly imploded one way or another.
>>29330713
>Man you throw buzzwords around like they are going out of style
Don't call them buzzwords because you lack a coherent response. Again I ask, why is mind control so much more successful than physical threats if the latter is more suited towards the "human psyche"?
I do find it amusing you posit the notion that people who seek freedom do not understand the idea of consequences (i.e. personal responsibility). Even though most political theories that focus on individual freedom is pretty much all about personal responsibility. Is that really your attempt at an argument against freedom, by posing a ludicrous question?
>>29330661
>prices out the vast majority of gun owners.
>So Rhodesia's voting system was in fact, a de facto racial ban. Get it?
and yet they still had the highest standard of living for blacks, the largest black middle class (voters the lot of them) and blacks in parliament.
and along came mugabe. you can really call him more democratic if you really want too. and naturally he was never racist, because he had dark skin.
>>29330798
I'm not arguing against freedom, I'm saying that someone who says they like freedom but doesn't like social Darwinism doesn't actually like freedom.
>>29330769
Feudalism was not explicitly totalitarian. The system revolved around legal and military obligations for the nobles, and a contract of labor in return for protection for the serfs. Arguably it was less totalitarian than some regimes that came later, because totalitarianism developed a bureaucratic edge.
As for Aristotle, his understand of democracy two millenia ago (which he deemed as mob rule) is hardly the same as the representative politics of today, or even more contemporary forms. The Roman Republic lasted close to five centuries.
>>29317784
My god it moves
>>29330799
>changing the topic: the post
So, Rhodesia was indeed an apartheid nation, but it's OK because the blacks were relatively well-off, so that makes it all OK.
>along came mugabe
Note how the Rhodiepoo assumes anyone who calls out Rhodesian institutional racism must be a Mugabe supporter. So people who call out South African institutional racism is a... Mandela supporter? No wait, that doesn't really work.
>>29330817
>people who like freedom don't understand what they really like because of ideas I have held a priori
Social darwinism was an idea based not on responsibility, but lack thereof (i.e. the ruling/upper classes owned nothing to the lower classes, and vice versa). Of course, free people were totally free to ignore that by engaging in philanthropy. In fact, social darwinism did not take hold amongst the American upper classes (who donated vast sums to charity), but by eugenicists, progressives, and other anti-liberty types.
Care to explain why one necessitates the other?
>>29330799
It is interesting that Black Rhodesians had a higher standard of living than Black Americans.
>>29330981
proof, evidence, etc
>>29330864
>Feudalism was not explicitly totalitarian. The system revolved around legal and military obligations for the nobles, and a contract of labor in return for protection for the serfs.
My good friend, you don't mean to tell me you assumed all this time I was advocating some sort of *straw man* based on some sort of platonic ideal of perfect oppressing did you? Why, perish the though!
>Arguably it was less totalitarian than some regimes that came later, because totalitarianism developed a bureaucratic edge.
I'm well aware of this, which is why I advocate the general form. I could go on at length about the evils of managerialism, but that would be somewhat of a digression.
>>29330864
>As for Aristotle, his understand of democracy two millenia ago (which he deemed as mob rule)
Which is basically true.
>is hardly the same as the representative politics of today, or even more contemporary forms.
Which really is why such an ecumenical lable like 'democracy' can sometimes obscure issues (even though one thing leads to another).
After Andy Jackson had his fun, Important People of the times in america observed something of a problem; the spoils system, as such, basically created chaos every time the will of the people was consulted to select an executive. The choice was between the power of an elected official to do as he saw fit, or chaos.
In the end it was decided that the solution was to elevate the civil service above that ultimate executive power; to hire and fire people, thus inaugurating the sovereign permanent bureaucracy, which rules to this day, rendering elected officials as largely symbolic (and thus by extension rendering *voting* symbolic). In other words, the solution to a democratic problem was less democracy.
That's the basic trend you see play out in modern states; the steady relegation and minimization of the actual effects voting has on anything in order to remove the chaos caused by voting on things has, while still pretending voting does things.
Obviously I think it is all an insane rube Goldberg machine built on lies and deceit in order to approximate achieve the same sort of things you could simply do with an explicit aristocracy (rather than an occulted 'aristocracy'), but hey, at least its not *actual* mob rule!
>The Roman Republic lasted close to five centuries.
The republic also wasn't really an actual democracy either. By way of contrast, the Athenian democracy lasted two odd centuries (and killed Socrates).
Anon, I just want to say I've stayed up several hours past time to talk with you. I sorry to say i don't think I can go on though, so I will bow out. As a parting I'll just leave some links obliquely related to your last few points.
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2015/03/being-progressive-yesterday-race.html?m=1
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/jacques-ellul-on-demand-for-propaganda.html?m=1
I hope you have a good night.
>>29330549
>>29328867
Dude, I wasn't even a part of that debate until now, but you have obviously no idea how cold war politics and proxy wars worked. At all.
>>29317190
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_Fifth_Brigade
Fuck mugabe.
>>29332825
Overthrow when ?
Too bad no one qualified, is interested.
>>29328826
>>29328867
>>29329138
>>29311654
>Not retaining your national identity.
KEK!
>>29333458
It was never his to begin with.
>>29330885
You have two options and neither of them are the ideal:
>Live in an apartheid system that can actually be changed over time with patience(Like South Africa and the US) while maintaining the quality the high standard of life
or
>Live under a communist dictatorship with a one party policy, that's currently facing a famine due to removal of white farmers with experience and knowledge of plantation farming . Further noted the regime responsibility of commiting acts of genocide against certain African tribes. And any support of other political parties will result in your death.
Sounds to me like you prefer communism over a democratic government that can face reformation over time. Have a pic related, with love from PR.
>>29332770
Care to enlighten us all then?
>worked
>implying any of these proxy wars was a win for the west
>muh realpolitk
>>29333809
Nice false choice there. Who are you, Obama?
>implying Ian Smith is de Klerk
>>29307894
Sorry anon, but this is utter bollocks.
For the bitter truth, see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qy3v6/what_was_rhodesia_really_like/
>>29333809
Or I could choose neither, both are shit.
Also
>the US
>SA
>Good places for blacks
Truly you racists are beyond delusional.
>>29333910
>the racist rear-guards defending their pet racist state would make shit up
I'm shocked
>>29333925
Nice move of goalposts with ad hominem, but both South Africa and the US had reformations in their laws that removed apartheid from power (Civil Rights Movement, and Anti-Apartheid movement) . It would also have happened in Rhodesia, but thanks to impatient people like you (Great Britain in this case), they decided to take a short cut which destroyed the quality of life and further degraded the liberties of both Black and Whites living in the region. Let alone, Mugabes racial actions of deporting all whites from the country, and leading a genocide campaign against the Gurkurahundi. You're even more delusional to assume I'm a racist just because there were potential alternative actions that can change the political atmosphere of Rhodesia. Sotell me, how many hours of MSNBC do you watch?
>>29333840
That's not what I implied at all, but since we're here.
>Afganistan
>Chile
>Greece
>Israel
Hell, you could even say France, considering the elections results there in 1946.
But let's go back to the initial post.
>so called "free" first-world countries are so hostile to freedom and self-determination that resistance groups ended up getting support from the communists.
I'm sure that the communists helped them due to their deep-rooted humanist values, an not because snatching a former british colony and gaining another foothold in Africa was like Chrismas coming early for them.
France did sell tons of weapons to Rhodesia, directly or through third parties, including South Africa, and I don't think their main motivations here were based on moral choices either.
And of course, the fact that Mugabe was a self-declared Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, even 10 years before starting guerilla actions, did not influence his choice of patrons at all. After all, the examples of one of the two blocs helping a country/organization subserviant to their opponent are dime a dozen during the cold war, right?
It's not like the eastern governments that accepted the Marshal plan were overthrown shortly afterwards, or like the CIA sabotaged unions in western Europe, hmm?
>>29333910
Is it pronounced Rhodesia or Rhodeshia?
>>29317592
these?
>>29334355
Rhodesia
>>29334385
Yes, there were also about two more.
>>29334416
i have got em here
>>29334852
>>29334852
I would like to make a rebuttal good sir.
>no
>>29334852
>>29334881
Thanks, m8. Are there any nonbiased documentaries?
>>29312489
>troopies
>>29334286
>I'm sure that the communists helped them due to their deep-rooted humanist values
Dat strawman. Obviously they did it for the chance to stick it to the west and to gain local allies. And often times they succeeded.
The west could have preempted this by taking a hard look at their local hard-man instead of indulging in the paranoia about the KGB supposedly being everywhere (see the well documented failures of James Angleton) and therefore throwing their support behind whomever said the most anti-communist words.
Admittedly sometimes the US got it right in the short term (Afghanistan) but most of the time their actions are the result of paranoia and gain nothing in return for blowback and ill-will (Chile).
Also, no mention of Vietnam?
>>29334852
Top kek he tried to play dead with the gut/chest shot.
>>29335086
>Paranoia of KGB everywhere
Dude, the KGB was everywhere during the Cold War. If you want to find the videos online check: "Deception was My Job"
>Bezmenov, Yuri (1984). Soviet Subversion of the Free-World Press: A Conversation with Yuri Bezmenov (Video). Interview with G. Edward Griffin. American Media. Westlake Village, Calif.
>Bezmenov, Yuri (1983). Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IV 1/2 (YouTube).
>>29334960
I wish I had more but thats all folks also have never seene any documentaries about this conflict
>>29334881
Has anyone identified the armored vehicle in that webm ? I'd say Mowag Grenadier, but I'm not sure.
>>29335086
Dude, you need to make an effort and tone down the snarkiness and >implying, I can barely make sense of your post in response to the previous one. How was that a strawman? Why is Vietnam dropped here? How can you say that the KGB wasn't everywhere when it was one of the most efficient intel agencies of the world and inflitrated even the highest spheres of NATO command? While we're at it, why are we even talking about the KGB? Elaborate your thought process, dammit.
And I would say that the US didn't "gain nothing" most of the time, considering the ultimate fate of the Soviet bloc, and the current repartition of communist and capitalist countries in the world.
>>29308095
He has some kind of weird little almost-Hitler-stache going on there.
>>29316081
Rhodesia wasn't an equal country. It was better than South Africa was, and a hell of a lot better than Zimbabwe.
>>29336422
It is a strawman because no one ever said the communists helped people because of their commitment to moral values and human rights.
The context of the KGB here is that the CIA directed the US government to back corrupt, tyrannical strongmen all over the world to "fight" against this paranoid fear of communist infiltration and insurrection, and thus allowed communist bloc to take a stance that they are backing the right side of history (because as we know, all the anti-colonialists won in the end). This happened so many times the USSR set up "human rights conventions" to highlight western support for racist and brutal regimes.
The "free world" could have easily deprived the communists of this easy propaganda by not doing what they did. And as it turns out, declassified information shows that many of the countries they messed with were not in fact about to fall victim to some KGB coup. Most notably, Chile and Indonesia. Chile as it turned out merely received overt economic and trade support. And the CIA was cleverly played by Suharto to back his purges.
Vietnam was dropped because it is the most obvious example of local strongmen playing the US government for fools. Which I guess is how proxy wars in the era really "worked" in most cases.
>>29336701
>Rhodesia wasn't an equal country.
In all fairness, many countries lacked equality back in the 70s. Hell, there are countries today that lack equality.
>>29336823
This. Rhodesia would have made it out of apartheid as Rhodesia-Zimbabwe weren't it not for the Bongs taken control of the elections
>>29338208
And Mugabe wouldn't have been elected if the brits correctly banned him from the ballot in places where he pressured the population a lot.
