Rhodesia & The Rhodesians

"An American View"

[Essay written in 1977, the year after the Rhodesian Government yielded to severe sanctions & massive international meddling, to promise a transfer of sovereignty to a Government to be chosen by "Majority Rule"--a new entity to be premised upon universal suffrage among all peoples living within the geographic unit then known as Rhodesia, without consideration for ethnicity, heritage, education, culture or the absence of common values--by 1980. It is here slightly altered, but in substance and tenor the same as originally drafted. It is published now in response to actions by the Mugabe Government of Zimbabwe, which appear to constitute a final, terrible, demonstration of the folly discussed.]

This writer vividly recalls the first reports of Rhodesian Independence--announced to the world in a document intentionally worded to parallel the American Declaration of 1776--received while on a speaking trip, November 11th, 1965. The spontaneous enthusiasm, with which many thoughtful Americans welcomed the Rhodesian proclamation, attested its importance. After two decades of retreat and indecision in the West, one body politic had advanced decisively.

Now, less than a dozen years later, Rhodesia is about to be "written off," in response to enormous international pressure. The geographic entity shown on the maps as Rhodesia--the State over which Rhodesians have been sovereign--is soon to be "liberated." A well-educated, largely White, electorate is to be broadened to a point where the men of European civilization and ethnic heritage, who have administered Rhodesia since the granting of self-government in 1923, will be submerged into a "Democracy" based upon universal suffrage among all adults living within the present borders. Even the name is to be changed, removing the suggestion that Rhodesia or its culture are in any sense the creations of White Settlers, speaking a European language.

As it is recognized that those Settlers, the principal Rhodesians, are indispensable to the maintenance of a modern society, elaborate plans have been drawn to induce their stay for at least until such time, when it is fondly imagined that other inhabitants will be trained to carry on, to continue building on the same economic foundation. At such point, it is supposed, the continuity of a nation will be assured.

I find I must dissent. American and European Conservatives should understand that we need Rhodesians more than Rhodesians need us. One cannot be sure of the geography, but with God's help, whether held together or scattered, a white Rhodesian Nation will be around for a long time to come.

Our Rhodesian contemporaries may be passionately devoted to their present homelands, within present borders. Yet a nation is both more and less than its geography: More, in that it may survive even if totally driven from its fatherlands; less, in that it may share a homeland with one or more other nations.

Yet, while many have reservations, other Rhodesians have themselves, to a notable degree, shared the idea that their neighbors in present day Rhodesia will, eventually, be educated and assimilated into a much greater level of compatibility with a European derived culture and civilization. Perhaps "progress" in such direction is still possible, but how much and to what ultimate purpose? Is the issue in Rhodesia the selection of a time table, or something much deeper?


If one were to catalog political, social and economic fallacies in the order either of their significance to the retreat of civilization--our civilization in our times--and to the death of opportunity for greatness or excellence (or even for adventure or romance), or by the inanity of the fallacy itself, from the nearly totally vacuous down to the semi-rational, as fit for the formulation of a useful hypotheses; one would have to post the same two at or near the top of either list. Inherent in the debacle of the West are both the acceptance of claims that an environmental determinant is the major cause for human variation, and its close cousin (derived from the same false rationale of human plasticity, the imagined unimportance of human type), an assumption of viable nationhood, determined solely by geographic placement.

The second of these errors, more obviously applicable to Rhodesia, is the more easily disposed of.

The American Indian Tribes, with their numbers and variety, provide numerous examples of defined national entities with fluid geography. For separate and distinct nations, they certainly were, and blood was shed over generations before they were subdued.

Another familiar example would be in the nomenclature "King (or Queen) of Scots," rather than of Scotland; an obvious recognition that, with Scottish subjects serving in many lands, the Nation was nowise confined within the borders of Scotland--although their place of origin and national homeland remained geographically definite.

Numbering but a little over 200,000, beset by major powers of both East and West; Rhodesians may be forced by overwhelming pressure to yield some of the lands they love. Yet it is not to be imagined that the blending of some of the very finest of the respective stocks of Scots, English, Irish and Afrikaners, which has been proceeding since the Pioneer Column first crossed the Limpopo, and which has now produced a Nation, will just dissipate into historic oblivion. For fundamentally, and beyond all question, Rhodesia is now a Nation: A White, ethnically European Nation with exceptional qualities and outstanding virtues, now living amid various Black Nations of different cultures, traditions and aptitudes, north of the White and Black Nations of South Africa. The word Rhodesia has no significance but as a White concept, the creation of White Settlers, seeking to build a society reflective of their values, hopes and aspiration.

Correctly understood, Rhodesia now has majority rule; though that fact, surely, ranks far lower in a Rhodesian's scheme of values--even as it did with one of the celebrated founders of America--than his personal faith in God, or his dedication to the rights of the individual to enjoy and pass on the fruits of honest labor; values which lie at the core of the Western conscience, such as proper esteem for private property and respect for private motives.

What is now proposed by the major powers is not majority rule for Rhodesians, but an artificial amalgamation of three or more distinct national societies; the sole justification for which is a geography in some instances common, in others merely adjacent. The Societies selected for this curious merger are to be given weight in the new mix, precisely equivalent to the enumerated result of their previous breeding and settling--hardly self-evident bases for determining legal, moral or cultural questions. The new compound, itself, is then to be recognized by the balance of humanity as the Nation.

No great theologian, or any theologian or philosopher worthy of credence, has ever posited human worth in the Creator's eye, collectively based upon numbers of adherents, or individually based upon the numbers of co-adherents. No rational historian ever ranked nations past, nor the antecedents of nations still extant, in greatness or even strength, solely in terms of their respective numbers. Few students of history would even be familiar with the population statistics that would be required.

No human progress, in any field of elevating endeavor, has ever depended upon counting noses, hands, feet or the signatures of literates or the marks of the ignorant. Every essential right of free men, in those political societies which recognize individual freedom, is held against the majority--that is, in spite of what a majority exercising governmental power can do, if that free society under consideration is one where the majority even exercise governmental power (by no means an inevitable assumption).

Former United States Senator James A. Reed of Missouri put the subject in context, in the United States Senate, June 4, 1926:

I am getting a little tired of hearing about the sacred rights of the majority; that this is a country ruled by the majority. . . . This is not a country ruled by the majority. This is not a country of majority rule. The Constitution of the United States was written, in large part, to prevent majority rule. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement that there are limitations upon majority rule.

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were declared in the Declaration to be inalienable rights. They could not be given away by the citizen himself. Much less could they be taken away by temporary agents, sitting in legislative bodies, holding a limited authority of brief duration. . . .

Majority rule! Where is the logic or the reason to be found back of majority rule except in the mere necessity to dispatch business. . . . The majority has been wrong oftener than it has been right in all the course of time. The majority crucified Jesus Christ. The majority burned the Christians at the stake. The majority drove the Jews into exile and the ghetto. The majority established slavery. The majority set up innumerable gibbets. The majority chained to stakes and surrounded with circles of flame martyrs through all the ages of the world's history. The majority in China believe in a doctrine and follow a code of ethics different from ours. Either they are wrong or we are wrong. . . .

The majority went down the pathway of the ages wearing gyves, which they voluntarily forged and fastened upon their arms; and when a minority arose headed by some brave soul, they hanged him upon a gibbet, they crucified him upon a cross, they pulled his limbs apart with horrible instruments of torture, and the majority stood there leering and jibing at the man who was the apostle of a better day.

Majority rule without any limitation or curb upon the particular set of fools who happen to be placed for the moment in charge of the machinery of a government! The majority grinned and jeered when Columbus said the world was round. The majority threw him into a dungeon for having discovered a new world. The majority said that Galileo must recant or that Galileo must go to prison. . . .

Why, then, the fervid urgency for a forced unification of diverse national societies, both in Rhodesia and elsewhere, upon one man, one vote formulae, demanded in the name of "human rights" or "freedom?"

A steady and studied campaign among the leftward oriented, throughout the Twentieth Century, has sought to establish an environmentalist social theory--the primary fallacy touched upon above--the fanciful dogma that cultural environment is the principal determinant of human differences. The necessity for such a theory to the leftist academic, seeking to justify a socialistic or communistic solution to human problems, is of course obvious.

Morally, a collectivist intervention in the normal process of achieving and passing on material gains, the "fruits of one's labor," can only appear idealistic to even the most imaginative if it is coupled with some sort of hypothesis of past or present wrongs--the exploitation of the apparent failures by the comparatively more successful. If the more successful tend to be inherently the more able, the more industrious and/or the more thrifty, shackling their effort and redistributing their wealth ceases to appear so self-evidently idealistic to even the wettest-eared undergraduate.

Because the most obvious refutation to dogmatic environmentalism are the wide and persistent differences observed between the primary races of mankind, collectivists have indulged an especial fanaticism in their attacks on any meaningful study, or even awareness of racial difference. Those Caucasoid societies which, because of close proximity to Negroid societies, would naturally afford an example as to how diverse human types, when placed in a similar natural environment, will each develop a cultural milieu (environment) which reflects its distinct and unique nature, are thus seen as threats. They become prime objects for attack by those who would treat race, itself, as little more than a figment of the fancy of bigots, or a mere question of skin color.

The continued existence of States such as South Africa and Rhodesia, attests the sterility of the tenets of those who claim that apparently significant differences in racial traits are susceptible to assimilation by social engineering of a type now fashionable in contemporary America. If the collective can abolish race; can turn over, intact, the achievements of one race to another; it will not be so great a task to complete the job, already far along in much of the world, of redistributing the production of the abler members of every race and nation to a social collective and those who control it.

It is not because Rhodesia exploits the Bantu Nations within her borders that she is under attack. A far more likely explanation, given the zeal and bias of her enemies, is that she achieves without doing so! Rhodesians are a living example of what an able nation, respecting private property and the right of the productive to enjoy, accumulate and pass on the results of their labor (that is a Capitalistic nation), can obtain. One of the reasons, Western conservatives most need Rhodesia, at a time when we have come to accept a succession of socialist compromises of what were once understood as essentials to our heritage, is to demonstrate again the actual effectiveness of economic freedom.

That the environmentalist cannot abolish race is, of course, what makes the world-wide effort to destroy Rhodesia (and South Africa) so poignant. Despite the ex cathedra pronouncements from the campuses of the world, the realities of race and inherited traits persist; the suggestions of true racial assimilation are absurd. As this writer observed in an article appearing in the year of Rhodesian Independence [Flax, William, "Environmentalism, Scientific 'Achilles Heel' of Collectivist Totalitarianism," The Mankind Quarterly. Vol. VI, No. 2, October-December, 1965]:

The case for racial similarity and equality of hereditary mental potentialities and propensities . . . . is based upon an absolute absence of any empirical evidence supporting the loudly proclaimed conclusions. Apart from the wild assertions of the environmentalists, the only argument . . . . is always by exception and in mitigation of the seemingly overwhelming array of evidence against equality. . . .

What sort of a justification does it offer for the subjugation of a civilized minority in Africa to Marxist barbarians chanting 'one man--one vote' slogans? It is the only case the collectivist has!

. . . . Whether you are discussing the comparative success or failure of different races in the founding of great civilizations, the ability or lack of ability to retain and utilize skills imparted to them by others, their relative ability to adapt themselves to alien cultures, or a hostile environment, or the more or less highly evolved structure and shape of their brains, you come to a conclusion no different than you would if you merely studied the results of intelligence tests, or compared the percentages of geniuses and dullards among the different races. You would independently reach exactly the same conclusion if you approached the subject by comparing the races and the intermediate types in all the different mixed-racial countries in the world, and observed how little differing environments altered the resulting relative positions of the types examined.

There is only one reasonable explanation for such widely varied approaches leading inexorably and independently to the same conclusion. . . .

As a practical, logical proposition, the . . . controversy over whether races differ significantly in hereditary potential is over . . .

Those who pretend that those problems . . . . which derive from human differences will be solved by their not becoming involved therein, should deceive themselves no longer. The mythical ostrich, his head buried in the sands of self-inflicted ignorance, merely avoided his chance for salvation.

Twelve years later, the situation is unchanged.

From the standpoint of a political society, the most significant of all innate differences, between the varied peoples and races of this earth, must surely be those which orient personality. Wide as are the ranges in aptitudes, important as "I.Q. gaps" may be, differences in personality have still greater impact in determining the course of nations.

This must not be understood as passing judgment, good or bad, on any ethnic or racial group. That Negroid peoples tend to be more sociable than most Caucasoid peoples is everywhere apparent; and, in an increasingly crowded world, may certainly be seen as an advantage in certain respects. Yet consider some examples and implications of this difference in orientation:

The clustering of housing among South African Bantu tribes, in their own tribal areas, is very striking in the context of vast tracts of surrounding country-side, which remain virtually unsettled and unused. This phenomenon is in stark contrast to the housing patterns of Whites in similar rural Southern African settings. As to this, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his book The Great Boer War, 1900--perhaps not totally objective here because he is endeavoring to justify the British position in that War--describes the Transvalers, whose descendants are now present in substantial numbers in Rhodesia, as a people who boast that "one farmhouse cannot see the smoke of another" because of the great distances between them.

The contrast is certainly not limited to the African continent. A study conducted in an integrated American suburban community some years ago, financed by several pro-integration groups, noted [Fishman, Joshua A., "Some Social and Psychological Determinants of Intergroup Relations In Changing Neighborhoods," in Avins, Alfred, Open Occupancy vs. Forced Housing Under The Fourteenth Amendment, 1963]--

. . . We have considerable evidence that Negroes are much more eager for interracial social relations than are whites. Negroes more frequently want to be warm neighbors, and they more frequently prefer that their neighbors, Negroes and whites alike, be warm and friendly rather than casual and polite. Negroes believe that interracial social relations have not sufficiently increased in number. Whites on the other hand, are less eager for interracial social relations, believe that interracial social functions have grown greatly in number and are generally much less eager to give or receive warm neighborly behavior. . . .

The implications of this differing orientation, in weighing such questions of immense importance to a political society as the balance to be struck between private rights and public prerogatives, cannot be brushed aside under the pretense that all that is involved is an extension of political rights to persons previously denied same.

More than one investigator has noted that conscience (the "site of moral censure") among Negroid peoples tends to be extraneous to the individual, being collective and social rather than self-contained. (See, for example, Swan, Donald A., "Psychological Studies on the Sudanese and Guinean Negroes: A Review," Mankind Quarterly Vol. XVI, No. 3, January-March, 1976.) This tendency would, if nothing else, tend to encourage block voting. It probably also explains much else that has puzzled White observers in both Africa and America.

Can such widely diverse peoples as inhabit Rhodesia, mutually exercise political power in a common political society, where the more socially oriented are in an overwhelming majority, under principles dictating universal suffrage, without the most egregious injustice to the more individually oriented stock? None of the noisy proponents of the Majority Rule concept has yet to show even an awareness of the real problem.

To judge the morality of a policy it must be remembered that in all ethics a balance must be struck between different values, different rights. Absolute right for the one may mean tremendous injustice to the other. [Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, Prime Minister of South Africa, to the South African Club in London, March 17, 1961.]


Realistically, White dominance, achieved more through excellence than conquest although embodying elements of both, characterized by paternalism but never by exploitation; has for almost a century left the Bantu Nations of Rhodesia in a dependent and subject role.

Obviously, this is a condition which could be changed, if that is what the involved peoples desire. There are at least three possible rational approaches to such a quest:

1. Rhodesia could be partitioned into several sovereign States, with each Nation enjoying full sovereignty over a part of what is now Rhodesia. (This would certainly not rule out the retention of a common market, coextensive with the present whole.)

2. Sovereign power could be shared, upon some Federal principle, among all the Nations residing in Rhodesia. (This would imply the retention of a common market.)

3. The present situation could be reversed, with the authority over the whole given to one or more of the Bantu Nations, and White Rhodesians left as a dependent and subject people--yet ethnically distinct and, perhaps, able to turn the tables yet again, at some future time, to regain sovereignty.

Since many of the White farmers in Rhodesia represent families, which originally settled independently in empty, ownerless, stretches of country, there are long standing principles of law that dictate that--at least as to their own lands--they not be subject to any other nation, White or Bantu. Vattel in his classic 18th Century treatise on the Law of Nations, recognized as authoritative in America generations before anyone established a domain in Rhodesia, sets forth the principle in Book II, Chapter VII, Sec. 97:

When several independent families are settled in a country, they possess the free domain, but without sovereignty, since they do not form a political society. Nobody can seize the empire of that country; since this would be reducing those families to subjection against their will; and no man has a right to command men who are born free, unless they voluntarily submit to him."

If the present Government of Rhodesia were in fact the illegal government, much of the international community contends, the above would precisely define the status of the typical White settler and his family. Great Britain has not even engaged in the pretense of commanding such, as to their internal affairs, since 1923; and it is beyond merely doubtful that any Europeans, who settled in Rhodesia's open areas, ever contemplated a possibility of being governed on one man/one vote principles by the neighboring tribes. There is certainly no evidence of a voluntary submission to such a prospect.

However unjust the third of the approaches suggested above, each of the three recognizes that Rhodesia's inhabitants do not, by any logical standard, constitute a single nation. Unfortunately that reality seems lost on much of the would be policy makers. What the collectivist enthusiasts of the U. S. and British foreign services are proposing--what the Black Marxists on Rhodesia's borders are demanding--is something quite different: A tacit abolition of both White and Black Nations, with the submersion of the individual residents remaining into a unitary State, which the "World"--as suggested above--will then recognize as the "Nation."

Such a "solution" to the multi-national realities of Rhodesia is immediately akin to solving crime by "sharing the wealth," ending religious persecution by outlawing the practice of religion, establishing peace by military conquest. It is a not too distant cousin to abolishing contagion by calling infection, "hospitality." The human differences are real. They will not be wished away.

Can they be coerced away? Is there any rational reason for the effort?

Nathaniel Weyl has reported on the administration of intelligence tests to white Rhodesian children ["White Rhodesians: An Unrecognized Intellectual Elite," Mankind Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 4, April-June, 1967]:

Actually, the White Rhodesians are an outstanding intellectual elite. They are in all probability the most intelligent people in the world today.

. . . .the Rhodesian tests reveal that the White population contains proportionately from two to three times as many gifted children (130-plus) as can be found among the White populations of the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand. . . .

Another way of putting the matter is to observe that one out of every thousand White Rhodesian children had an I.Q. of 180 or better, whereas the statistical expectation is that only one out of every thirty thousand will have an I.Q. of 160 or higher.

The potential for such a small, extremely gifted, human society to contribute significantly to the enrichment of human life can scarcely be over-emphasized. Rarely in human history, has there been proportionately such a coming together of the able; a society of the self-reliant, yet cohesive in a sense of kinship with their own. Here, perhaps, is an opportunity for one of those unique flowerings of human achievement through the naturally selective tendencies of an upward reaching people.

Consider a later article by Nathaniel Weyl on human excellence ["A Biogenetic Paradigm of Western Civilization," Mankind Quarterly, Vol. XVII, No. 1, July-September, 1976]:

In the past, eugenicists have, I believe, approached the entire problem of the relationship between reproduction and intelligence in terms of an oversimplified model. The most important variable which they have either under-estimated or ignored is assortative mating for intelligence--the tendency of bright people to choose bright spouses, and stupid people to choose stupid ones.

The importance of this force in advanced societies can scarcely be overestimated. Jensen calculates that assortative mating has more than doubled the number of people in the U. S. with I.Q.'s over 130, caused a sixfold increase in the number above 145, and multiplied by twenty the number above 160. [Weyl's reference was to Jensen, Arthur R., Genetics and Education, New York, 1973, p. 108.]

The preeminence of ancient Greece, the blossoming of certain Italian cities in the 15th Century, the varied achievements of Elizabethan England, were in no case the result of a massing of incompatible human types in egalitarian societies; nor did the unique American character or genius, so evident in the first years of independence, result from such a confusion of types, forced into a common society by egalitarian pressures. Each flowering of the human potential was proceeded by eugenic conditions favorable to the breeding of the superior individual; and that which was wrought, in every remarkable instance, was the product of the singularly gifted.

Conversely, the mind boggles at any attempt to project the consequences, through the centuries since, had the small but extraordinarily gifted population of ancient Attica been submerged in a sea of human mediocrity in the 4th and 5th Centuries, B.C..


We have suggested that Rhodesians are more important--nay essential--to American and European conservatives, than we to them.

We live in times when frantic, often guilt-ridden, "liberals," resenting the material achievements of their fathers and/or grandfathers, soothe awareness of their own inadequacy by assuring themselves that such past accomplishments were products, not so much of individual effort and genius, but of another era and conditions which will never be repeated; times, when it is widely believed that great civilizations were the more likely results of chance location, in terms of natural resources, than any excellence upon the part of the nations involved; when competitive ambition and aspirations for future or family are viewed as mental aberrations, not really compatible with enlightened living.

Consider some of the principal day-dreams, or "day-mares" of the collectivist Left:

The all too popular response to any challenge to the Western tradition and heritage, are the slogans of defeat. We are lectured on the "vast numbers" of people in what is glorified as a "Third World," as though the numbers of less-competents were a consideration of transcendent historic importance. The meaningless cliche that the "World is mostly colored," is enshrined as a pillar of faith. Because Communism has consistently attacked the inequality of individual achievement in every freer society, it is blindly accepted that no State can afford to continue to allow large gaps between income levels without making the redistribution of wealth a major priority.

Normal human preferences are denounced as "prejudice," and treated as causes of "social injustice." There is prattle of a "new day," in which it appears to be imagined that coming generations will want no part of patriotism, ethnic pride or acquisitive capitalism; where the old social order will be swept clean and past values rejected. On every side, the belief is promoted that there are no meaningful innate differences between peoples, races or even sexes; that the only White men who reject this new dispensation are those of low intelligence or without self-confidence; men afraid to yield old prejudices and special privileges.

In truth, many conservatives have become so cowed by the general aura of unreality, that their normal responses are muted; and they tend to argue only in frames of reference which accept the premises of the foe. Thus we hear from a new anemic Right, that large corporations can do more to reduce the "income gap" and promote "social justice" (which has become synonymous with socialist dogma) than can the Government; while corporate managers (as contrasted to builders) pose as philanthropists with their often unwitting employers' (that is the shareholders') earnings.

The response of the anemic Right to incredible "affirmative action" programs, which are ravishing American education at every level, lowering--perhaps irretrievably--American standards in a myriad of once honorable occupations, and turning residential neighborhoods into social shambles; is to criticize "reverse discrimination." This approach implicitly accepts the notion that it is the exercise of discernment which is wrong, not the pursuit of fantasy; that the threat to the public is that the "liberals" are inconsistent, betraying their faith in the absolute equality of human types, rather than simply wrong!

Consider, then, Rhodesia, her people numbering only 4% of the inhabitants of a common homeland, thriving despite international sanctions, the vindictive freezing of their overseas accounts by a Fabian Socialist Government in their mother country, and the combined hatred of the entire non-Capitalist world; yet demonstrating daily the absurdity of what almost two generations of Americans have been conditioned, by a "liberal" establishment, to accept. Rhodesians are succeeding in the ways in which the very best of earlier generations of Americans and Europeans achieved, and in the face of a type of adversity, none of us have known in this Century.

The terrorists, whom the Rhodesian forces destroy daily, claim to represent the aspirations of 96% of the inhabitants of Rhodesia. They obviously do not. Most visitors are impressed by the calm serenity of Rhodesian race relations. However, the terrorists do enjoy the support of populations numbering many times the Rhodesians' own numbers, in neighboring States. They also have the benefit of the active support of the World Council of Churches, organized Communism and Socialism, and other powerful Leftwing forces, on a global scale. They attack by stealth with as modern equipment as they could possibly use. Yet Rhodesians, with the help of many loyal Bantu, kill almost nine terrorists for every loss of their own; and there is little doubt that if the enemy ever attempted an open attack, the ratio would soar to many times its present level.

The stores in Rhodesia are full of items once imported, but now produced locally by the sort of improvisation one no longer sees in any of the countries which have gone socialist.

Rhodesia is the antithesis of the sterilized Western education, which stultifies ambition and demeans and disparages the higher concept or nobler aspiration.

Rhodesians suggest the possibility that even among the affluent, there may yet emerge a people who will hear and heed the clarion call of a threatening onset, winding from our conceptual Roncesvalles among the mountains of human adversity; challenging us all to a renewal of the spirit in these times of seemingly aimless drift and decay.

William Flax

[Personal Postscript: Your author spent a happy week in Salisbury, the Rhodesian capital, in 1966, the year following U.D.I.. I have never been in a more peaceful city--nor a more beautiful one. In six days of wandering about, I saw only two policemen. On the other hand, the quality of the individual Rhodesian was extraordinary. Any man one met, who had been old enough, had been an officer in combat in World War II--many playing vital roles in preserving Britain from the Nazis. No one in Rhodesia had to ask the meaning of a popular cartoon showing Harold Wilson, then British Prime Minister & committed foe to free Rhodesia, captioned, "By the way, Mr. Wilson, what did you do in the War?" Every Rhodesian knew that the disgusting little Socialist, trying to destroy their way of life, had been a clerk hiding behind a desk, while Rhodesian heroes had been laying down their lives, in the air, on the sea & ground, to save their Mother Country.

Subjected to sanctions, vilified by the major powers East & West, innovation had been the order of the day; and calm determination, coupled with good spirits and contempt for human folly, were very evident. It was in Rhodesia, certainly not in contemporary Britain, that one could really begin to understand the British traits and character that had made possible an Empire that had spanned the earth. Numbering scarcely more than 200,000; for over a decade, Rhodesians held their heads high, uncowed by an array of nations populated, literally, with several thousand times their numbers.

The eventual capitulation came as a result of two factors, which no level of innovation could offset: First, the sudden fall of the Conservative Portuguese Government in 1974 led to an immediate betrayal of European interests in Mozambique and closure of Rhodesia's principal route to the ocean; secondly, the almost incredible pressure of the United States State Department, which forced the Shah of Iran & the Prime Minister of South Africa to threaten to cut off all shipments of oil to the landlocked nation. Yet from 1965 to 1976, Rhodesians had been an inspiration to Conservatives everywhere. The above essay was my small contribution to an unsuccessful effort to yet rally those who cared, to stave off a promised surrender of sovereignty in 1980. Obviously, all efforts failed.

Still Rhodesia & the Rhodesians will not be forgotten. They remain in the prayers of many of us. May God Bless their remnants, even scattered as they are! The destruction of Rhodesia was a totally unconscionable crime against the human potential, which no parade of Leftist slogans will ever render holy. Never did the line from song, "Damned from here to eternity," better apply to anyone than it would to Rhodesia's foes. Their real issue was with the Almighty, who made us all different; not with the Rhodesians, who simply understood the complexity of His Creation.]

[Download any article at this Web Site onto Flash Drive for safe storage.]

Our Novel: The hero, a young Conservative who thinks like Donald Trump; the principal antagonist, The New York Times!>>

Return Of The Gods

Conservative Debate Handbook--All Chapters

Conservative Intelligence Center

March/April, 2017>>
What Drives The Trump Haters

September, 2016>>
"Who We Are?" (Trump Supporters)

July, 2016>>
Trump: The Issue

> March, 2016>>
Donald Trump--Metaphor For American Conservatism

September, 2015>>
Reality Is Not A Grievance

May, 2015>>
"Gift" That Keeps On Taking

February, 2015>>
How You Define A Problem May Define You

November, 2014>>
Multi-Cultural Absurdity

August, 2014>>
Answers To Anti-American Lies

June, 2014>>
Prosperity & Peace Depend On Mutual Respect

April, 2014>>
Crimea Returns To Russia

March, 2014>>
Another Variation On Demonic Theme

February, 2014>>
Variations On Demonic Theme

January, 2014>>
Perspective Governs Values

September, 2013>>
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"

A Deserved Tribute>>
Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr.

July, 2013>>
Compassion Or Compulsion?

Footnote On Egalitarian Compulsion

Compulsion For Uniformity

June, 2013>>
Jason Richwine & An Assault On America's Future

May, 2013>>
Crack-Pots Betraying Duty?

April, 2013>>
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!

March, 2013>>
Compounding Disintegration

February, 2013>>
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry

January, 2013>>
Missing Link To Reality

December, 2012>>
Whither American Conservatism?

November, 2012>>
Obama Or America--Irreconcilable Differences

October, 2012>>
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose

August, 2012>>
Social Reform: "Unintended Consequences?"

July, 2012>>
Cloud Dancing Revisited--A Spreading Contagion

May, 2012>>
Blame & Envy--Demagogues' Path To Power

April, 2012>>
"Diversity": Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy

March, 2012>>
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!

February, 2012>>
Conflicting Premises For A Social Order

January, 2012>>
Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly

"Occupy Wall Street": Fruits Of Corrupt Education

Debt Default In America

Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential

Pursuit Of "Diversity": Return To Babel?

Gold & Money In America

Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America!

Libya, America & The Law Of Nations

Denial Of Reality

Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought

A Place For The America We Knew?

American Essentials

Ultimate Insult--Egalitarianism

Cloud Dancing--Social Medium For Scoundrels & Neurotics

America, Built On Experience & Reason

Keynesian Harvest, 2008

Gaming The Question--Staple of Demagogues

"Liberal" Or "Mipip?"

"Social Justice"--Not Social & Not Just

Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal

Keynes At Harvard--Quacks In Education

Addiction: An Economy Dependent Upon Easy Credit

Function Of Money--A Medium Of Exchange

Leftwing Chickens Coming Home (Obama)

Race & Ethnic Politics--America, 2008

2008: Peter Pan In The Great Rift Valley

Liberty: The Basics

Shameful: President Bush On Immigration

George Washington vs George Bush (Foreign Policy)

Racial Denial In America--Life & Politics In A Pavlovian Kennel

Conservative Debate Handbook--Defining Issues

Universal Suffrage--Threat To Liberty

Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education

An American Foreign Policy

Democracy In The Third World--Destructive Egalitarian Myth

American Declaration of Independence--With Study Guide

Our Archive

Literary Corner

Conservative Resource Menu--200+ Items