Thursday, January 24, 2019
How "What we ought to have said but haven't said" came to Determine so much of History. A History made more by What-couldn't-be-said than by What-should-have-been-said.
History is made by people with ideas, will, drive, and/or dreams. People use the power of words, images, and symbolism to put forth and push through their visions. History is obviously molded by what people say and do, but then, how much of history is shaped by what people don't say and don't do? Now, if people really didn't know of or failed to realize certain truths, it couldn't have been helped. But what about cases where enough people knew or should have known but didn't come forward with their knowledge or inhibited their intuitions of the Obvious? Much that seems so obvious later(or from another perspective) was muted or blind to all(those who mattered) In-the-Moment in a particular time and place in History.
For example, take France and North America. The French could have been the dominant force in the Americas, and then, maybe, 20th century would have been the Franco-American Century. What made the difference and prevented such outcome? The distinct settlement polices of Anglo-American colonies and Franco-American/Canadian colonies. There was more freedom, opportunities, and incentives for ordinary people of Britain to try their luck in the New Land. It was easier for men and women to make the journey together, to own land, and have property rights. The English Monarch had less control over what happened in the colonies. In contrast, the Absolute Monarch of France oversaw the New World policy. So, by the time of the French and Indian War, Anglo-Colonies had 18x the population as the French colonies. But imagine if the French had sent just as many people. The French and Indian War was mostly decided by French troops vs British troops, but the British had more support in man and material from the colonists. The French not so much, which is why they had to rely so much on unreliable Indians.
The French and Indian War (1754–1763) pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by American Indian allies. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians.
Just think. Despite being outnumbered by such a huge margin, the French almost won. The war dragged on for 9 yrs. It is a war the French could have won if they had more settlers. Also, consider that France didn't just claim Canada but the Louisiana Territory. America could have been mostly a French Colony, with Anglos limited to East Coast of America.
Now, I'm thinking that some French elites noticed the problem, i.e. that the Anglo colonies were filling up much faster than the French ones. I'm sure they foresaw doom unless the French could send more people to fill up Canada and the Louisiana Territory. Demography is Destiny. Yet, why did they fail to make the case? Why did most elites not raise the issue with the French Monarch? Because the socio-political implications of such shift in settlement policy were huge. It would have undermined Absolutism that came to define the French Monarchy(and which ironically passed onto even the Revolutionaries and Napoleon). Most people are so deathly afraid of 'triggering' the power. It's like everyone in Akira Kurosawa's RAN knows the lord made a rash decision in suddenly handing power to the not-too-bright first son, but most just bow their heads and obey. Only the youngest son and an adviser dissent, but they are soon banished for daring to speak the truth. EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES pretty much sums up the psychology of power. Of course, the Iron Consensus could involve the masses as well as most people are so easy to manipulate. Mark Anthony turns the masses from denouncing Caesar to avenging him with a single speech. Americans went from strongly anti-'gay marriage' to strongly pro-'gay marriage' in a generation due to Media Barrage. Toohey understood in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. While those on top concoct the 'truth', it becomes even 'truer' if the unthinking masses are made to feel passionate about it through emotional and moralistic manipulation.
But if the French had opted for a revised strategy, they could have taken most of North America. Its vast riches could have favored France over Britain. Also, the great prestige of having prevailed over the Brits in the New World would have been a great boost to the French Monarchy, and there may never have been a French Revolution.
Looking back, it was so obvious what prevented the French from dominating the New World. But, for the most part, the issue went unmentioned within the French Court because the Monarch was the sun and the French people were his subjects, not individuals with rights.
The power of consensus and fear of taboo determine so much of history. It is only much later, among people unhampered by the same consensus and taboos, that the truth becomes so obvious and can be discussed freely. Of course, people of the future will be hampered by their own forms of unanimity and heresy.
Now, consider the famous case of Japan in its buildup to the Pacific War. Looking back, it was so obvious what would happen if Japan provoked the US. In his book MODERN TIMES, Paul Johnson wrote of how so many Japanese KNEW but marched to sure doom due to the power of consensus, fear of taboo, and the cult of purity & honor. The militarist mindset carried over from samurai times disdained any show of weakness, which increasingly became a taboo. Japanese prefer unity over dissension. Also, there was the purity cult that held that it was more honorable to fight and die with pride than concede and lose face. If Germany's madness was driven by Hitler at the top, Japan's madness was driven, at least in part, by pressure from below. Unlike American, European, or Soviet officers whose duty was to obey orders from above, many junior officers in Japan felt they had a higher loyalty to the Emperor or what he 'really' stood for. So, unlike Western officers, these junior officers were willing to assassinate higher officers who seemed weak and face execution in the name of honor. Much like the 47 Ronin Legend. Noble self-sacrifice. Rebelling in the name of higher loyalty to Emperor and nation. This had a terrifying effect on the elites whose conception of Modern Japan rested so much on themes of pride and honor. In the West, junior officers could be controlled with threat of court martial or execution. Also, popular opinion would not have been on the side of rogue officers. But the fanatical junior officers of Japan were willing to commit acts of terror and face death in the name of honor. And there was something in Japanese popular sentiment that appreciated such acts based on purity of devotion. (Ian Buruma wrote of how even Leftist Japanese media were disappointed with students who pledged to give their lives for the cause but then surrendered to the police. They were lacking in pure spirit. Seijun Suzuki's FIGHTING ELEGY offered a glimpse into the mindset where even hooliganism can be redemptive if done with true spirit.)
Looking back, it seems so obvious what Japan should have done. It would have done better to take the US offer of keeping Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan in exchange for ending the embargo. But the psycho-political climate was such that few dared to even make such suggestion.
Another famous case is, of course, Soviet Union on the eve of German invasion. For so many in Soviet intelligence, it was becoming obvious that the Germans were planning something big. Some dissident historians argue that FDR knew Japan was going to attack and eagerly anticipated it. But Stalin certainly didn't want an attack and refused to believe it. But the evidence was mounting, and some in Soviet intelligence informed Stalin. But what happened to them? They got sent to the Gulag or executed as saboteurs or spies. But then, the Soviet system had already created a climate of fear where it was dangerous to tell Stalin anything he didn't want to hear. It was Purge Nation. Looking back, it's obvious what the Soviets should have done, but so much went undone simply because of power of consensus(emanating from Stalin) and fear of taboo.
And the horrors of the Great Leap Forward could have been lessened if Mao had been informed of its early setbacks. But he was only fed false news because of the climate of Mao adulation and fear of displeasing him. Things began to change only when conditions got so bad that real reports trickled into Mao's office. Then, he had to plead with his subordinates to tell him the truth because they were so fearful of 'triggering' him. But by then, millions upon millions had already died.
Or consider the American Civil War. It could have been avoided if the South had seen eye to eye with Abraham Lincoln who was so right about slavery and the black problem. Given America's founding principles of freedom and liberty, slavery could only be a stain on America. Also, due to racial differences, the future of whites could be deeply compromised if the races didn't separate. If the South had understood this and came to terms with Lincoln with some agreement to phase out slavery and work towards real racial separation, the horrible war and all its dark racial consequences could have been avoided. But the South seceded to maintain an immoral institution. It was also blinded by its neo-aristocratic romanticism of warrior spirit. Looking back, it seems so obvious what should have been said and done. But people back then were intoxicated with their own sense of honor, pride, and glory.
Whites had another chance in the Age of Jack Johnson. Here was a black guy whupping all the white guys in three continents -- US, Europe, Australia -- and sexually conquering white women. It was obvious that blacks posed an 'idolic' threat to white males, and its implications on everything from sports to sex to school thuggery to street violence were so obvious. Based on racial facts of the case, white males could have made a moral argument for separation, i.e. blacks pose a real threat to whites. But white males had too much pride and honor riding on the issue. They sought the Great White Hope and when Jess Willard finally defeated the washed-out Jack Johnson(in what was still a grueling fight), white guys just assured themselves that they are on top again. This fact of black-white racial differences should be obvious by now, but it STILL cannot be honestly discussed(due to new set of taboos centered around 'white guilt'). Because America wasn't PC in the period of Jack Johnson, a time when talk of race was fair game, an honest debate on the Black Threat could have made honestly, compellingly, and morally back then. Whites missed their chance. Now, what with the neo-spiritual power of PC and Negro-Worship, it is more difficult than ever. Currently, only one side of the Jack Johnson narrative is allowed: He triumphed over white bigotry and contempt. That's true enough as he had to prove his mettle in a culture that looked down on his kind. But there is another side to the story that has far greater repercussions for whites in both America and Europe, but no one dares mention it. Black manhood destroys and cucks white manhood, and no race can survive for long as a free people without pride of manhood. Look at browns in Latin America. Permanently conquered and denied pride of manhood, they are a defeated and browbeaten people.
And of course, so much of the madness since the End of the Cold War could have been avoided IF people admitted that Jews are the new ruling elites of America. Maybe they earned the right to rule with smarts and hard work. Still, power is easily corrupted and abused, and its true character must be called out. The fact is top power in the US is very Jewish and very much geared to Jewish and Zionist interest. Jews being for Jews or Israel is not a problem per se, but it is a problem when Jews use the manpower and resources of a nation that is 98% goyim to push forth policies that narrowly favor what amounts to Jewish supremacism: Russia in 90s, Middle East conflicts, Israel-Palestine policy, rules on free speech(such as anti-BDS laws), promotion of Homomania(which is really proxy of Jewish minority elite privilege), and Victim Supremacism(that becomes a new nihilism as Jews, as the People of Holocaust, the biggest victims of all history, justify everything they do in terms of destroying New Nazis who are apparently everywhere: Putin, Assad, Iranian rulers, Trump, MAGA hat kid, etc.)
Maybe one day, when the American system has collapsed, another civilization will study American History without its particular pressures of consensus & taboo and expound on the Obvious and what should have been done to prevent disaster upon disaster. But we are living In-the-Moment in American History when the power of consensus and fear of taboo make it nearly impossible to speak the obvious. It is a Moment when not only James D. Watson but even officially sanctioned figures like David Reich come under threat by either fanatics of PC(the teachers pets or the system's attack dogs) or cynics of supremacism(usually elites who know the truth among themselves but figure it's too 'dangerous' for the people and common discourse). Because most of the elites are players than leaders and because they were allowed into upper ranks for holding certain 'correct' views, they just parrot the party line to keep their prized position and privilege.
There's a scene in 13th WARRIOR where the guy quotes the Koran: "For all we ought to have thought but have not thought, for all we ought to have said but have not said, all we ought to have done but have not done..." That sums up so much about why history ended up the way it did and why it will never be what it should be.