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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

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.[4] 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.

A Response to Eric Margolis’ Denunciation of Ken Burns’ THE VIETNAM WAR Documentary

For Eric Margolis’ article, click: THE VIETNAM NIGHTMARE – AGAIN

I don’t think Ken Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who were involved in the conflict. Sure, there were warmongers, profiteers, and egomaniacs. And paranoids.

But Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Now, Eisenhower could be aloof or angry. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But they were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for the military brass, well, what would one expect? They were educated, trained, and prepared all their lives to think of the world in terms of team sports. They were trained to fight and win, not to think of higher matters or deeper truths. Sure, West Point and Annapolis educated bright students who learned history and ideas, but it all came down to one thing: Fighting and Winning. As for the CIA, it is a sinister organization by design — an agency of necessary evil — , but then, let’s keep in mind that Soviets had a worthy counterpart in the KGB. Let’s remember Soviets infiltrated FDR’s government and stole a lot of secrets and planted a lot of subversives. Soviets even got the Bomb during the Truman era. Also, Soviets ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted dissent in their own empire. And EVERY nation has its own version of the CIA. If CIA did more damage, it was because powerful nations just have more means to do so.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if it was on the verge of being united under a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. After all, the US didn’t intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved in Vietnam was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino Theory is thought to have been ‘debunked’, it certainly made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed it. So did Mao, which is why China, though poor and backward, sent aid to rebel groups all over the world. Soviets believed that a sign of US weakness could spark revolutions all over the Third World that equated capitalism with imperialism. Che Guevara certainly believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would start a wildfire of anti-Yanqui revolutions all over Latin America and then eventually spread to the US as well. Che really believed this, which is why he spent some time in the Congo and later died in a failed insurgency in Bolivia.

Also, at least in part, the Domino Theory did come true. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind that the communist victory in Malaysia was prevented only by ruthless British strategy of hurling huge numbers of people into concentration camps and hamlets.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be on the wane, not least because of social conflicts and cultural decay that defined much of the 60s and early 70s. Americans threw in the towel after losing ‘only’ 58,000 men. The outside world got the impression that Americans no longer had the resolve to impose their hegemony on the world. If a ragtag army in Cuba could defy Uncle Sam in the early 60s and if guerrilla troops in Vietnam could defeat the greatest technological power, maybe America lost its warrior soul as the result of excessive freedom, pleasure, and individualism. It seemed like dejavu of Pax Romana's decline, what with a populace that was no longer respectful of authority and no longer willing to make sacrifices.

Not only communists were emboldened by American troubles(and ultimate 'defeat') in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was inspired in part by Vietnam(though it ignited as a silly scuffle about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was a World Power. French troubles in Algeria weren't all that surprising as France was an empire in decline. French defeat was a setback for a European power, not a World Power.

So, after the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat Goliath anywhere in the world. The Shah regime in Iran fell, and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened to roll in the tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador and Guatemala. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Salvador Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by CIA-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It certainly blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn’t all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics… at least in perception. Ironically, the Vietnam example inspired the US and the Mujahadeen to pull off something similar in Afghanistan against the Soviet Empire.

In the end, communism wasn’t defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn’t sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa was a constant drain, like flushing money down a toilet. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. As Eastern European nations were limited in natural resources, their economies had to rely on manufacturing, which meant Soviet industry had to be suppressed. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster in economic terms. Maoism was hell on earth.
Some might argue communism failed because Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of neutral nations willing to do business with communist nations — India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets — , the real reason for the failure of communism was it just doesn’t work.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina — brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia — and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam eventually made the switch to market economics, it’s clear that US was on the right side of history at least on basic economic theory.

Also, the Vietnam conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, occupying the southern half, dropping bombs, and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they sought to impose Stalinism on the entire nation when, in fact, many people didn’t want it. After all, more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? Because there’s something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone, and there are so many things you aren’t allowed to do. It’s a system where you can’t do so many things and are told to do lots of things that make little sense.

Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory… just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way in the Pacific War instead of calling it quits to save lives. Also, many atrocities were carried out by the communists as well. The massacre in Hue, for instance. In war, all sides do horrible things.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn’t have intervened in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided. There is no getting around the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot who devoted his life to gaining independence for his people. Even though communism was an unfortunate choice, his formative years were defined by a world in which the great empires were capitalist while the Soviet Union lent a hand, symbolic or material, to Third World peoples yearning to gain independence.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for a b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, perhaps his rather sympathetic take on Cold Warriors reflects the neo-hegemonic worldview of globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the dissemination of agendas favored by people like CucKen Burns: Homomania, Afromania, feminism, Diversity, and EOJ(or Empire of Judea). Today’s progs want the world to become neo-Americanized because America itself has been remade into a giant globo-experiment. We now live in a Metropolar World.
Indeed, in today’s Vietnam, as journalist Linh Dinh had duly noted, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet communists had fought for patriotism and national sovereignty, it could be that the new Western ‘progressives’ now almost feel as though the US was on the right side of history all along.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make Joe McCarthy blush? They all seem to have learned to love the empire. Their ilk are now in the commanding heights of all institutions and industries. So, US imperialism now means the spread of more proggery all over the world.

Fascist-Democracies are the Best Bet for the Future

A Facist-Democracy in Action

Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History was not marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profound changes in its forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.

Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’ and 'liberal', supposedly the quintessential attributes of the West?
Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And huge swaths of what had been Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. If a people-and-culture are defined by a set of ideas, are they no longer that people-and-culture if the ideas were to change? If we say the samurai system and ethos are the indispensable essence of what it means to be Japanese, then are we to assume that the Japanese stopped being Japanese once they abandoned the samurai order and embarked on the path of Westernization? While it is true that samurai culture and mindset left a huge imprint on Japanese history, isn't the core essence of Japanese-ness the story of Japanese people in their homeland? Likewise, while it's true that political democracy & individualism originated and came to fruition in the West, the core essence of the West goes far deeper than any philosophy or set of ideals. More than anything, it's about the people, the land, and their sense of history REGARDLESS of whatever ideas or values they may have espoused. Thus, barbarian Vikings were no less a part of the West than Republican Romans. And Spanish living under autocratic Franco were no less part of the West than Swedes living under Social-Democracy. France was just as much a part of West under monarchy as under revolutionary populist ideals. So, the notion of distilling the entirety of the Western Experience into a bottle of 'democracy' is rather glib and shallow.

Also, there is no need to fetishize democracy. The historical lesson of democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, has often led to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.

For democracy to thrive and ensure survival of the civilization it serves, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that are now prone to spouting such sentiments such as “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” In Iran, Israel, and Turkey, the democratic institutions serve, respectively, Iran-ness, Jewishness, and Turkishness. Democracy serves than dissolves nationalism. (A fascist-democracy allows liberal freedoms and free elections BUT enshrines the core fascist themes into the Constitution whose primary function is to secure the survival and well-being of a particular ethnos on a specific territory justified by a certain narrative. The danger of autocracies is the power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few that grow increasingly paternalistic and corrupt. The danger of democracies is the people become fractured into atomized individuals succumbing to appetites and alienation, thus allowing cynical elites to gain plutocratic power behind the scenes. In contrast, a fascist-democracy provides direction & meaning to freedoms that ultimately go to preserving the ethnos and mythos. Thus, people do enjoy freedoms and choices as individuals but are inculcated from cradle to find meaning as organic members of a larger community of blood-and-soil. Too many people tend to see politics in terms of right-wing aristocracy vs left-wing democracy, but democracy can be made to serve nationalism via fascism, which also allows for compromise between capitalism and socialism.)

America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom bound to powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. A democracy without fascist themes to keep it loyal to a people & culture will eventually dissipate because an idea serving an idea(instead of something specific and tangible) will grow weak and decadent. In time, the people are made to value the idea more than the realness of their own existence as ethnos and culture upon a territory. Thus, French people no longer believe their political system exists to defend and preserve the French nation. Instead, the French people and nation now exist to serve the Idea that, in a state of abstraction, becomes universal and is no longer specifically bound to the national interests of France as blood-and-soil. (While the cosmopolitan ideal of the French Enlightenment is not a new one, its corrosive impact had been tempered in the past by nationalism, traditionalism, and chauvinism that favored the French over their colonial subjects who, furthermore, had little chance of moving to France. Today, it's so easy for millions of non-whites to invade white nations every year. What had been the privilege of the affluent has become the tangible dream of countless mobs in the Third World. The practice of cosmopolitan universalism went from rich & educated white Europeans traveling to exotic places to millions of Africans and Muslims arriving in France and UK to shake their booties to rap and shake down whitey for free gibs.)

Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a proud Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ for all of humanity that may want to migrate to Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.

That is precisely what is happening in the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if current trends are left unchecked, the future of Europe will be doom and demise.

A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people & culture of a nation.

A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population that has been demoralized and deracinated by PC. If some native people do remain idealistic and passionate in a decadent-democracy, it's only in welcoming racial and national suicide in the name of serving the ideas of 'democracy' and 'openness'... and 'diversity', another essential 'Western Value' recently discovered or invented by PC. It goes to show that 'Western Values' are really dictated by whomever wields the power to control the narrative. Deracinators or 'Deracists' are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.