Post Pictures, Ask Questions, and Talk
Do you have autism Tsar Bomba Man? Your posting style is so weird and awkward and the two threads I've seen you make were both utter shit.
>/pol/ pretends they have a connection to a war that happened before they were born general
nah not today bro
you have fun though
Which ones? I only know Game for Vultures, can't find it anywhere, there's just a few parts of it on Youtube.
>being this new
Rhodesia has discussed on /k/ for years and years.
Where can I get some bitching Rhodie short-shorts??
>Had a foreign legion
>Won every single military engagement
>Loved civilian firearm ownership
>Had some fantastic armaments
Nope, not /k/ at all
Maybe if your a pussy.
On the savannah, short shorts are the only things I would fight in. The only thing to worry about really is the dust and how fucking dry everything is in winter. I've spent a lot of time in the bush in SA so I'm going to assume similar conditions
It's good seeing this thread again. Has anyone come across some Rhodesian gear for sale?
I started to watch it not long ago and didn't get past the first 10 minutes because I thought it was anti-Rhodesian.
Also, is Blood Diamond relevant? Was thinking of watching that movie.
>Has anyone come across some Rhodesian gear for sale?
Yes Ive got a set of R1 handguards that were made in South Africa and exported to Rhodesia. Also have a "Be a man among men" poster framed
>I started to watch it not long ago and didn't get past the first 10 minutes because I thought it was anti-Rhodesian.
I didnt get that vibe from it at all
>Also, is Blood Diamond relevant? Was thinking of watching that movie.
Only scattered mentions of rhodesia but its a good movie.
So imagine we are wearing short shorts and removing commies in the bush in New Rhodesia, what would /k/ put on their legs to keep them hydrated and free of insects? Lotion + insect repellant? Just insect repellant?
colonized an area they weren't from by force and brutalized the natives in horrific ways? Religious ideology driving the whole thing? and the big ass beards and shit taste in vehicles pretty much seals the deal IMO
You are thinking SA maybe.
What the fuck is up with those liberal reddit newfags here hating on Rhodesia lately?
Looks like it's time for a minor history lesson.
>colonized an area they weren't from by force and brutalized the natives in horrific ways?
During the 1880's, the British South Africa Company (lead by Cecil Rhodes) stumbled upon the territory that will later be known as the Rhodesias on a mission to explore, mine and generally colonize the area. As you can see, Africa has always been a continent filled with unstable communities that were constantly at war with one another. If the unification of these communities was attempted, violent civil disturbances would naturally happen and the -British- would find themselves with no choice but to either leave the land (which didn't fit their imperialistic ideals at the time) or two pacify the natives and try again. This is a process that was not only seen in Africa, but also in the Americas. It is NOT exclusive to a white, European demographic. I could go on, but hopefully, you get what I'm saying.
I would normally tell you to reread the latter, but then I tried to remember if the Rhodesians (or even the British) ever had a religious agenda. I certainly know that the Americans had the Manifest Destiny deal going on in the 19th century, and that the British had the Puritans, the Reformed Protestants and the Catholics in the 17th century, but I can't honestly recall if they where motivated by religious intentions by the time they were doing serious colonization work in Africa. But if anything, the Rhodesians were hardcore patriots, not religious zealots, and that included the blacks, because they knew that Rhodesia had equal opportunity for education and most jobs, without having a legislated apartheid.
I actually haven't seen a Rhodesia with a huge beard before.
In conclusion, it seems to me that you're just uneducated on the subject.
>Trimmed, maintained beards are the same as that of an ISIS member
>Having a beard means you're ISIS
Get the fuck out. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Care to explain how Mugabe is Hitler? Bastard did a genocide campaign the Ndebele people for political opposition after the war, became a dictator under the name of "prime minister", Allowed the killings of Black noncombatants to dissuade them for working with whites and going to school, Desecrated religious sites (Churches) and allowed the rape and killing of children and nuns. And he even allowed the engagement of white civillian farmers in the countryside. Bastard deserves to be removed of power and charged with war crimes along with his terrorist political party.
Didn't notice the beard in the OP, so you're right in that regard.
But then again, what the fuck? US operators are known to have fucking beards like that, are you saying they're ISIS too, shithead?
>Ian Smith was an absolute zealot
Ah yes, and Mugabe was the epitome of a peaceful, fair leader, correct? Shoulder to shoulder with men like Gandhi?
Fuck off with your bullshit, you biased prick.
Well, most of them are based off of real life armies. They've already used all the good ones (excluding modern forces, which wouldn't fit as well).
But the Rhodesian regiment could be like the Catachans, but for savanna type environments.
You gotta love the Catachans, though they would be better if they weren't ALL Rambos. I would like to see some of them with more fatigues, or ponchos, or helmets. But they're fun.
Especially SLY MARBO!
Only because the native Africans where nowhere near close to being capable of being properly educated in politics and economy, much less help administer a damn country. If there's any doubts about this, look at Zimbabwe and pretty much every African nation run by a centralized black power government.
Wrong. White and blacks had the same opportunities, especially in getting the same education. However, same opportunities =/= same outcomes. It's like how women and men are now given the same opportunities in combat arms, and yet men are generally, and most importantly, -objectively- better in this field than women.
>Does the term "racism" mean anything to you?
You know, I find myself asking the same question often. I guess my answer is that the word itself has lost it's value thanks to it's tremendous amount of usage among liberals and democrats.
I don't believe in equality. Not in any way, shape or form. If that makes me racist, so be it.
They were racist, but they're laws weren't. Blacks had equal opportunity under the law.
If you looked at all the countries around them, you would understand why they have so few blacks in power.
Maybe you should actually try reading about Rhodesia?
Whites had complete control, despite representing less than 4% of Rhodesians.
Rhodesia had it's own Colour Bar: In fact they did it even before South Africa formally did it. Laws passed in the late forties which segregated blacks and whites, blacks only allowed to live in the 'European' areas if they could prove they were employed as a servant or other service position for a white household.
Hell, the fucking country was founded by the whites in an attempt to block the decolonization process which would have seen it turn over to black majority rule.
You can glorify the mercenary work all you want, but Rhodesia as a state and concept is morally and patently disgusting. Country founded on racial oppression.
>Hell, the fucking country was founded by the whites in an attempt to block the decolonization process which would have seen it turn over to black majority rule.
Can you blame them? Honestly, read up on the later years of Rhodesia and how Mugabe came to power.
>>Wrong. White and blacks had the same opportunities, especially in getting the same education.
You're so full of shit, and you probably don't even realize it.
Completely segregated living areas.
Completely segregated schooling.
When the schools did finally start to mix, Smith "sold" the schools for token sums to groups of Europeans so they'd then become private schools, forcing the blacks out.
Oh, and for bonus points, Rhodesia instituted laws restricting voting which disenfranchised the vast majority of the black population.
What a fucking paradise.
Assuming your statements are correct (which they are not)
How then do you reconcile the fact that, objectively speaking, life was better for ze blacks under Smith than it is now.
Whilst furthermore, since you seem to paint that entire regeim as a racist and oppressive movement, how then do you explain away all the black fellows in police and army uniforms?
Same education as they were taught the same thing. I didn't mention living areas. Yeah, there was segregation and lots of it. But was it an uncommon thing considering the circumstances and the time that took place?
In the US, legal segregation in schools happened until the mid-50s and the Civil Rights Movement was in 1964, just a few short years before Rhodesia was criticized for doing the same thing. Also, South Africa had an actual apartheid going on, but they faced less criticism for it in comparison.
Of course, any normal person wouldn't normally be in favor of something like this, myself included. Personally, I disagree with the segregation that happened in the US once the 20th century took over. African-Americans had proven they could be normal US citizens capable of faring from themselves and they deserved to have the same rights as the white man during that time, but due to social racial tensions throughout the US (still present in modern times, coming from both sides), laws have to be enacted and racial segregation was about as much of solution as the Prohibition. It worked at first, but then things went to shit quick.
In both Rhodesia and South Africa's case, though, they weren't segregating blacks because they were blacks. No, they were segregating them because 50, 60 years prior to that, they were mostly tribesmen. A comparable situation to this was when the US declared itself a Constitutional Republic and claimed the North and South Western territories in the late 1700s, early 1800s. They had expanded the reach and borders of their country only to face Native Americans in the way. Things were different back then, and the generations of US born citizens that came after the first years of dealing with said problem had to further mitigate the situation, dealing with it in their own ways. In modern times, the best Rhodesia and South Africa could do was to segregate the unequal groups of people to acclimatize the country over the years.
>In both Rhodesia and South Africa's case, though, they weren't segregating blacks because they were blacks. No, they were segregating them because 50, 60 years prior to that, they were mostly tribesmen. A comparable situation to this was when the US declared itself a Constitutional Republic and claimed the North and South Western territories in the late 1700s, early 1800s. They had expanded the reach and borders of their country only to face Native Americans in the way. Things were different back then, and the generations of US born citizens that came after the first years of dealing with said problem had to further mitigate the situation, dealing with it in their own ways. In modern times, the best Rhodesia and South Africa could do was to segregate the unequal groups of people to acclimatize the country over the years.
>We segregated them BECAUSE AT THE TIME THEY WERE TRIBESMEN
>A significant proportion STILL ARE
Dude, my BFF is a black bugger - and he often tells me about how he struggles with his folks because they are, to quote, "Tribal peasants"
Even right now in South Africa and Zimbabwe, the ANC and ZANU have their power base in the rural (read: Tribal) black populations... with the urban black populations being the biggest drivers of change (ie: Supporters of opposition such as the DA or MDC or leaders moderate factions within the ANC or ZANU)
His words, not mine.
You know, all this discussing got me thinking.
I'm majoring in History and I eventually need to write a thesis on something, anything that's related to my field.
What should my thesis be about? What could I write about Rhodesia?
Yep very much so.
Apartheid was less to do with "oppress the blacks" (although that was an element)
And more to do with:
1. The suppression of communism
2. The belief (based on 300 years of near constant warfare) that blacks and whites could not live peacefully side by side
The idea was to keep them seperate to reduce conflict and impose a phased educational system tailored towards their needs (ie: urban kid and tribal kid have different needs and abilities) in order to bring them up to our level over time.
This was the idea that Jan Smuts formulated in the late 1940's and early 1950's and was an excellent plan.
And it worked: At the end of aparthied there were more blacks with cars than the rest of africa combined, more black docters and lawyers than the rest of Africa combined, the life expectancy for blacks in RSA was higher than anywhere else in Africa and the black population grew from 10 million in 1960 to 40 million in 1994.
Problem is that the rise of Afrikaaner nationalism ruined and bastardized the whole plan. If we had stuck to Smuts's plan and developed a large and sustainable black middle-class.... they sky would have been the limit
>1. The suppression of communism
Just to expand on this point.
My father was conscripted in the mid 1970s into the South African Army.
And the propaganda/motivation they were given was never "Swart Gevaar" (The Black Danger) it was always "Rooi Gevaar" (The Communist Danger)
It was allways, more about communism than anything.
And we see in South Korea, the same thing was done due to the fear that the poorly educated rural masses would be overly susceptible to communism
My god, it's like someone finally gets it and is able to put it into words in one single post.
I applaud you, anon. And to the person debating me, this is exactly what I meant. In contemporary/modern politics, things usually don't happen just simply because of an emotional rhetoric and because "they hate x variable" or for petty (key word) favoritism, things usually happen because there's an interest to protect and safeguard, and it's usually something worth protecting.
Exactly, why do you think the Soviet Union could expand so quickly and influence places like China, the Korean Peninsula, Central Africa, Central America and certain other countries?
>there's an interest to protect and safeguard, and it's usually something worth protecting.
Do you think its a just coincidence that the National Party started to discuss a power transition towards Majority rule right after communism collapsed in the USSR?
Why do you think President Mandela (PBUH) bent over backwards to disassociate with the South African Communist Party? He knew White South Africans vehemently hated communism above all else.
Some of my fathers stuff. Will try to find more
It's amazing just how far the UK went to vouch for the black majority rule in Rhodesia, knowing that it would've collapsed the country. What the hell were they getting from that?
He was is the Rhodesian regiment.
Apparently he was part of the long range 3 man patrols that lasted weeks at a time. And recruitment for Renamo.
He once talked about the end and the election. Apparently they were standing ready to kill every last one of Zanu/zapo leadership but the order never came down. Was incredibly bitter about it.
Jesus christ. Listen, I'm writing a book (historical fiction, so some artistic freedom is permitted) on the Rhodesian Bush War and that detail could really come in handy. Do you mind if I write that down and use it as a major plot point?
not the guy you're responding to but you should read "Selous Scouts" by Peter Baxter, he goes into the various assassination attempts on Mugabe by the RSAS and Scouts, and the SA-involved aborted attempt at the end of the war (that would've also killed Prince Charles)
I have read a couple of books with more info on it. Should try to get it. Will give you more clarity.
Get the ebook version, it's like 1/3rd the price. Or just [spoiler]steal[/spoiler] it.
I've been looking for ebook versions of Ron Reid-Daly's books because all the print copies are like $300+, no luck though. I don't think any scans exist.
Alright, I'll look up the books to see if I can find a copy of it.
Damn, that's a shame. And if I get a sub $15 physical copy, I'm getting it, but I'll probably just end up pirating a PDF of it. Anyways, thanks for the recommendations.
There is no way that's real, that is too fucking cool to be real.
Where'd you get the books?
Could I get some citations of these so I can read it in further detail? My school's geography class is on topic of South Africa and Zimbawe and I'd like to correct the fallacies in the geopolitics involved in the region according to the issued books
A Rhodesian born that fled to SA then was in 32nd Batallion.
Alright, finally found a good enough source.
This document talks about some of the history, battles and civil unrest within and around the country in a relatively short document. It's sourced, and proves to be fair and unbiased.
This is a documentary that covers both sides of the problem. About half of it shows evidence on why Rhodesia was good, the other half shows people criticizing it.
All in all, you should bring up the argument of what an meritocracy entails and the problems of dealing with a post-colonial era country.
>lament not being able to kill niggers
Frankly, I feel insulted. /k/ doesn't have a problem with blacks, they have a problem with savages. Savages aren't always black. They could also be hispanic, whites (/k/ tends to criticize hicks and fudds a lot.) and pretty much anybody who acts like a damn animal. Hell, we even had a famous trip here called McNiggerator and the guy was black and one of the coolest trips /k/ ever had. He was pretty well received, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Sound familiar?
Fucking race baiters.
>how then do you explain away all the black fellows in police and army uniforms
What is collaboration?
>How then do you reconcile the fact that, objectively speaking, life was better for ze blacks under Smith than it is now.
Because the issue here isn't quality of life, it's civil liberties. Only authoritarians conflate the two.
>Only authoritarians conflate the two.
They weren't ready for complete civil equality. Collaboration was a way to improve relations between whites and blacks, with the military being the best fit.
Don't twist my words, you idiot, it's not exactly oppression if they let them have jobs, get an education, keep communications with their tribal ancestors and a whole lot of other civil liberties I'm forgetting about. Legally speaking, they were miles ahead and better off in Rhodesia than in places like South Africa in terms of civil rights, and better off than every single other place in Africa in terms of quality of life. If you truly want to shit on a country for being racist as hell, shit on South Africa during the apartheid.
But hey, look at Zimbabwe and South Africa now. Whites are legitimately frowned upon and were used to be fucking persecuted, but it suppose that doesn't matter, right? Because muh white privilege?
>it's not exactly oppression
ok whatever. white southerners in the US postbellum used the exact same bullshit argument for close to a century and nobody seriously defends "separate but equal" as "not oppression"
>but it suppose that doesn't matter
>Ignoring other posts that counteract your argument
wee lad, it's like you never heard of progression and change. Rhodesia-Zimbawe is basically the same thing as Rhodesia but with a different flag, name and a repeal to apartheid. Same country, same people, slight modification to the government. Keep ignoring faggot, we all know where this is going
Gee Jimmy, you seriously have no idea. That was when Blacks finally got a chance to vote for the elections. End result was a Black president who wasn't an abusive, and oppressive cunt like Mugabe. As a matter of fact, Mugabe allowed the murdering more of his own people to dissuade them from voting and getting an education, the slaughter and rape of civilians, oppressed the whites, desecrate religious buildings and rven commited acts of genocide against the Ndebele (Surprise, surprise, they're black). Nigga just read the earlier posts, your arguments mean shit
Jokes on you faggot, I'm part West African
>separate but equal
I didn't say nor imply they were equals, in fact, I said the opposite. They were not equals, -yet-. In a place where the natives have an infamous grudge against the colonialists and pretty much everyone that came from their lineage, lines had to be drawn in the sand to stabilize the country. Like >>28916622 pointed out, do you honestly think tribesmen and Africans who hate the very people who came to introduce their culture to them were ready, able or capable of running a country in a similar manner to that of a white, European one?
Re-read the entire thread, then come back with another argument if you feel like it.
>In a place where the natives have an infamous grudge against the colonialists
And whose fault is that?
>lines had to be drawn in the sand to stabilize the country
>we must have order
>the colonial state must be preserved
I can see how blacks aren't terribly concerned about preserving the institutions of white racism.
>He Dindu Nuffin: The Post
Hipster detected. Then how come Mandela, who was worse off than Mugabe, didn't behaved exactly like him? How come he isn't the same result of a product of an oppressive government, hmm? The people of Rhodesia-Zimbawe elected their leader legally and without the rigs. The only reason Mugabe got elected was because of his ZANU shills backing up support and using the threat of violence to the blacks who didn't wanted to vote for him. Mugabe was worse than Ian, at least Ian respected their rights in education, medical care, land rights, tribal representation, and free speech. Unlike Mygabe who straight up murdered anybody who opposed his political power
>Implying stateless society tribes knew how to work with settlers of a different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
>What's cultural carrying capacity
You seriously don't understand geopolitics, don't you?
>What's progression and advocating for your rights
>Implying history is about the wrong and the right
Too kek, m8. History is written by the winners and by the powerful who implement their beliefs in it. Rarely will you find someone who respects the truth of history
>implying Mandela didn't have to fight with and accommodate the radicals inside the ANC and it was a very close thing
Nobody would know who Mugabe was if Rhodesia didn't insist on maintaining the oppressive status quo.
>And whose fault is that?
The British's, actually. Rhodesians had to deal with the problems of a post-colonial country while trying to stay afloat among the other African countries. The end result was that their method worked and both black and white people reaped the benefits of a stable country, until the UK intervened again forced the black majority rule.
>I can see how blacks aren't terribly concerned about preserving the institutions of white racism.
You know, the thing about education is that you get people who think their opinions are worth something and they start to think what political beliefs favor them without having the slightest clue on how they would be executed. This can cause grave problems and is the backbone of a lot of major events in history.
If the uneducated majority could truly have power, it would most likely fall into ruin as the majority wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to work things they wouldn't know anything about, much like how the average person couldn't fix a broken transmission in their car.
This was the problem with Rhodesia. The natives were the majority and hated the white "establishment", what was actually a meritocracy. When they finally had the power to make the white's influence invalid, everything went to shit. And now look at them, they're starving, have an economy more inflated than a bouncing house and have an incredibly shitty infrastructure.
>if Rhodesia didn't insist on maintaining the oppressive status quo.
So it would've turned out like, say, Angola, right? Or Mozambique? Maybe like Sudan, or the Congo. Perhaps more like Ghana and Somalia?
>Implying Russia and China wouldn't do it anyways even if the policies weren't opressive
Russia and China would always find a reason at the time to spread their communist influence, especially in resource rich Africa
There you go again, conflating quality of life versus liberty and civil rights.
Don't forget that the reason for the majority being uneducated was because the white minority regime made it that way. How convenient, by keeping the blacks in servitude, you can argue for a supposedly meritocratic regime where whites can retain all power by design.
Actually, when communism arrived in Africa, it was because the colonies had collapsed and they saw an opportunity to expand their ideals.
Prove to me that blacks where denied education, then. Only then, I'll reconsider my stance.
Also, there is such a thing known as being an opportunist.
Maybe if the West stopped picking the wrong horse like with France in Vietnam, they could get on the winning side for once.
A civil disobedience campaign would have likely had a more sensible leader than Mugabe (like Mandela), but the longer the white minority's insistence on dictating their own terms, the more likely it was for the radical blacks to win out at the end.
>Majority uneducated because the whites made it that way
Holy shit, that's one hilarious fallacy. They had the same capability of education as that of a white besides the segregation and slightly less funds. It was Mugabe's men who attacked any Black that wants to take an education. Why? So he can give them a victim complex of oppression, less educated blacks means less gains of opportunity in a meritocracy which results in a negative stance against the government. You really don't know anything, do you?
>Prove to me that blacks where denied education
They were denied equal quality education, just like in South Africa. It was segregated and unequal. Are you really denying that fact?
LOL not him but literally the same would have happened after the break up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (communists installing one of "their" African leaders). Just about 20 years earlier.
Because a majority of the black population were still living in tribes on land that was specifically zoned to be entirely tribal by the central government. The tribes couldn't even get along with each other let alone be able to make important decisions like who would be the leader over all of them as the prime minister. Eventually tribes were able to gain voting rights if they could show they were ready. But until then, for the most part, they left the government alone, and the government left them alone.
>Picking the wrong side of the Horse
Found the communist. It was either the Soviet Union and China spread their ideals and mess up a nation with dictatorships and genocide or the US and France back up a colony that can then get a referendum for an independent democratic nation, but that's another story. Both Mandela had around the same time in civil rights as Mugabe, the only difference is Mandela wasn't backed up by Communists.
>Ho Chi Minh asked the US for help against France in the 50's
>US decided trying to get France into NATO was worth more
>Ho Chi Minh went to the commies instead
The US literally fucked itself.
>the only difference is Mandela wasn't backed up by Communists
>there wasn't a significant communist faction in the ANC
For fuck's sake, I accidentally closed the tab and lost what I wrote.
Fuck this, I give up. There's no getting around you and both of us are not going to change our opinions.
Obviously, this thread isn't for you, and if you don't like it, you can obviously fuck off.
>destroying the illusion of the worst meme to ever infest /k/
>a bad thing
No you have it wrong. Rhodesia is a meme that has no place on /k/. This board is not for you or your fanboys of a dead country that list for good reason.
Fuck off and take your meme country, fanboys, meme surplus cumrags, and racist mass shooters with you.
I read a wikipedia article once about a guy in the Bush War who went on mobile patrol one day and got ambushed, so he did the only sensible thing and led his men on a fierce counterattack.
I can't find the article, any idea who it was? It was maybe 2-3 paragraphs.
>Completely missing the point of Mandela distancing himself and breaking connections with the communists
The US siding with Ho Chi Minh in the first place was never gonna happen, anyways. Ho Chi Minh was already trying to establish Communism in Vietnam
Rhodesia is the cancer killing /k/.
It has spawned more tripshits, shit generals, meme scam stores, and now several racist shooting incidents bringing more unnecessary attention to the non-degenerate population of the board.
It is time for it to go and stay away.
>Ho Chi Minh was already trying to establish Communism in Vietnam
Ho Chi Minh was a pragmatist who hated the French colonialists far more than he liked communism. The US had a wide open opportunity at the end of WW2 to get ahead of the game but instead they fucked themselves as they always do.
>implying imperialism is always a bad thing.
what is Roman empire
what is La Conquista (or Spanish colonization of the Americas)
what is British empire
I could go on, but empires pave the way for great things.
>fantasizing about massacring black people
I'll speak for myself on this one, but I'm sure that most of /k/ could agree with me. I think Rhodesia was great because they managed to achieve stability and prosperity in a place like Africa, which is historically notorious for being the exact opposite. Also, I'm a military buff and Rhodesia's military was surprisingly good.
>WWII- Fought with the Japanese to against France, recruited 600 Japnese troops and had buildings and weapons hnded to them by the Japanese agter they surrendered
>1945- Recognized by the Nationalists, but weren't backed by them, agreed to leave, negotiations between Viet Minh and France ensue but failed, leading to war
>1949- China supplied them weapons and turned them into an army, made Ho Chi Minh a dictator
Yeah, I can see why the US supported France
I get the whole hate for trips, I don't care for the board stores, but are you seriously accusing Rhodesia for causing mass shootings? Are you voting for Hillary also?
I get that you don't want negative attention coming to /k/, but really, why should we give a fuck? Is the FBI going to try to shut this site down or something?
This is an ANONYMOUS imageboard. If people want to express their own opinions they can, and if you don't like it than leave the thread.
>inb4 every thread is about [insert subject of complaint]
There are always still threads you can go on and if memes and board culture triggers you than you can fuck off to another site.
>accusing Rhodesia for causing mass shootings
It's not an accusation if it's true.
>If it's Spanish colonizing the Ameicas, it's not Imperialism, it's colonialism
>If it was Britain colonizing Africa, it's white imperialism and not colonialism
Nigga, they were fighting for influence between Britain, France, and the Portuguese, of course it's imperialism
>Reminder that board culture is allowed
Then why is it impossible for people affiliated with a meme store to post without getting b&?
Why is it that the prevailing opinion on this board and on 4chan in general is anti-board "culture"?
There is a difference between board culture and what the mods do. Board culture is controlled and created by the users. The mods just see something as not on subject and remove it. It's like a group of people who all like ice cream get together to talk. Everyone will have their favorite flavor and those that have similar tastes may have side conversations about it. Those who don't like it probably wouldn't participate in the conversation. They all are talking about the same overall subject but the side conversation about chocolate chip mint is the board culture.
Doesn't sound too different than the fanboys on /k/.
Doesn't work when the people in the "board culture" conversation try to shit up other peoples' conversation and make any discussion impossible.
I've never seen anyone getting banned from posting a Rhodesia thread. However, it's stated in the global rules that you cannot advertise your products, so that's probably why.
>Why is it that the prevailing opinion on this board and on 4chan in general is anti-board "culture"?
Do you have statistics for that or are you just talking out the ass? Because I'm always seeing niche threads like /ak/, AR-15 generals and shit like that (Which I don't mind in the slightest) every day on /k/.
Maybe you're just being a flaming faggot.
Most people are clearly against your meme "culture", and board culture as you define it depends on a majority since it's supposed to be representative of the whole board.
Guess your previous Rhodesia isn't board culture and doesn't belong here then.
>shoo shoo rhodieboo
>Doesn't work when the people in the "board culture" conversation try to shit up other peoples' conversation and make any discussion impossible.
You mean like whats going on right now?
Except your forced meme country isn't board culture and has been proven to have a negative impact on the board.
What you are seeing is a natural reaction to your previous abuses.
I think the problem is that the Rhodesian Bush War happened in the past for a specific period of time. You can't keep making threads about it all the time or even worse a "general". For what purpose? There's only but so much you can say about this obscure corner or 20th century history
Look, if you terrorist scum want to fantasize about killing non-whites repeatedly, go ahead. Maybe you should have a containment thread
They already did >>28911004
I think they need to be expelled. Putting them in an echochamber only reinforces their antisocial opinions leading to more racist shooting incidents.
Let them be someone else's problem.
> /arg/Full of AR anon fanboys
>/akg/ full of AK anon fanboys
>/ak/ having the same trip fags
>/brg/ with Battle Rifle anon Fanboys
>raifus and operator waifus all over the place
>Muh commie blocks thread
>Muh freedomz threads
>Need [x] this or Recommend [y] that?
>/k/ related [z] thread
That sums up /k/
Generals are the last thing /k/ needs right now. /k/ needs to be cleaned up first.
>It has spawned more tripshits, shit generals, meme scam stores, and now several racist shooting incidents bringing more unnecessary attention to the non-degenerate population of the board.
I'd be up for that. It would open up the discussion to more topics than just Rhodesia. Because like >>28923408 pointed out, it is a pretty niche topic. Having a little wider topic for discussion wouldn't be a bad thing.
If it's such a problem, how come I only see a small handful of posters so vehemently offended by it?
Seriously, this is the first time I've seen so many people mad at a Rhodesia thread, and I've been here since 2011 or so, when I realized that the weapons bored liked military stuff (the trip is new).
Once this thread 404s, I'll start one.
>a small handful of posters so vehemently offended by it?
That's because it's what you wanted to see. Base That Guy called people out on that many times.
>first time I've seen so many people mad at a Rhodesia thread,
Maybe it's because for the last 5 years we've had to deal with Rhodesia fanboys shitting up everything all over /k/ because they bought into the /k/ loves Rhodesia meme so they thought they were immune to criticism. There are consequences for retardation and faggotry, who would have thought so.
>Once this thread 404s, I'll start one.
No you won't
>That's because it's what you wanted to see. Base That Guy called people out on that many times.
Well, I saw a lot of posts with the same writing style, so I assumed it was only a small handful of posters. Besides, who's Base That Guy? Serious question.
>Maybe it's because for the last 5 years we've had to deal with Rhodesia fanboys shitting up everything all over /k/
The only major Rhodesia related thing I remember is that camo print being advertised on /k/ and that's because /k/ wanted to buy some Rhodesian BDU's. Pretty much everything else was sparse mentions on how Rhodesia was based, much like how the SKS used to get worshiped here.
>There are consequences for retardation and faggotry, who would have thought so.
And you say this as a /k/ poster? Come on.
>No you won't
Try and stop me.
I know you're lying to protect your fragile who after getting called out considering how log it took you to post such a short response, but that's still a containment thread.
>being this much of a newfag
And maybe the scheming and 24/7 advertising related to the failed camo project is why everyone is sick and tired of Rhodesia. It's time to let it go and if you won't do so voluntarily the rest of /k/ will be happy to show you the door.
You're not making much sense, mate.
do you have some sort of angry disposition towards me for telling kids that hey should sign up to the ADF?
jesus, you're getting buttblasted over a name and keep saying im from a "containment thread"
Yeah, I think that's the issue.
Just out of spite, I'm going to let this thread die and start the proxy wars thread after.
Was it because he couldn't deliver the BDU's or something?
>Was it because he couldn't deliver the BDU's or something?
What the fuck do you think? On top of being a huge insufferable autist.
Thank god everyone e has turned their backs on him and his meme store.
That Guy was the best thing to happen to /k/ in a long time. Using logic and wit, he made the autists, advertisers, and attentionwhores quake in fear. He genuinely made the community better by bullying those who wanted to shit up /k/ into submission.
Did I mention that they have a habit of shilling for their e-rep as well?
Is it any wonder why they're so hated now?
In that case, I can start to understand the resentment for Rhodesian threads.
But still, we're only -talking- about Rhodesia and stuff related to it. We're not trying to sell shit or act like complete autists outside our threads. Frankly, isn't it better to have "containment threads" and discuss it there than rather take it to every other thread on /k/?
They're very predictable since they're autists
That's the same excuse they gave and look what we have to deal with now.
It would not be good for /k/ to encourage them further.
But that is true since conspiracy theories have no evidence while there is plenty of evidence of things you surplusshits have previously done.
>nogunz faggots act like fags
>get called out on it
>escape containment to spread misinformation
Anyone know where I can get an ebook copy of any of Ron Reid-Daly's books?
>tfw you are born to late to operate in Rhodesian Bushes
>tfw you are born just in time for European race war
green leader bombing run
pic not related