My Biggest Red Pill Moment · 3:23am May 14th, 2018
During my conservative years, when I got into arguments with Stubborn Luis, he introduced me to an American Historian name Dr. Tom Woods. I don’t recall exactly how, but it was around this time I became aware of the Politically Incorrect Guide To American History. Since I loathe political correctness, the title obviously caught my attention. However, knowing that Dr. Woods is a libertarian, I...avoided the book like if it was an incurable disease.
I was afraid to have my worldview challenged. My patriotism and love for America and it’s military was a central core to my character. To criticize these concepts was considered an attack against me personally. I would always rush to the defense of my country and it’s warriors. Especially because I look up to the soldiers and marines, wanting to be like them at one point.
You can say that I...have a fascination with war. The drama, the heroics, the noble sacrifices, the thrill of mowing down your enemies, scoring your kills, being in hell with your buddies, having each other’s backs, fighting and dying for a righteous cause, especially the cause of liberty. I guess it may have something to do with how much I enjoyed playing Metal Gear Solid (great game), Call of Duty (especially World War II based), Gears of War, and Army Men. The American Revolution and World War II were my favorite wars to study when I was in government schools. I would binge watch Band of Brothers, The Pacific, Saving Private Ryan, Flag of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. I even considered Winston Churchill and George S. Patton to be my role models.
It has been said that there are two kinds of people who love war: those who've never been in one, and those who are bat-shit crazy. Time will tell which one applies to me.
Fast Forward To 2016
When I began to adopt the Non-Aggression Principle (thanks to Earning Freedom ), I again stumbled upon Tom’s book, which I have been avoiding for four years. Knowing that Dr. Woods also follows the Non-Aggression Principle, I told myself:
I have to do this. I must know the truth, no matter how much it’s gonna hurt me. Honesty and character demand that I at least give this book a try and examine the arguments.
Determined, I read the Politically Incorrect Guide To American History. Up until the American Civil War, the book was easy to digest. Tom and I are in agreement concerning the positive influence of Christianity in the British colonies and America’s founding. (1) He wrote the significance of self-government and liberty, which was the central core to the American Revolution.(2) Nullification, or the Principles of 98, (3) was well articulated and reaffirmed what I learned from Kris Anne Hall, who successfully convinced me of the constitutionality of nullification. I also learned new facts about what really started the Great Depression, including the incompetence of the Federal Reserve.(4) There were many points of agreement I have with Dr. Woods.
When I got to Abraham Lincoln and the Secession doctrine, it was pretty uncomfortable to read, especially since I use to support the Union cause. But Dr. Woods set in stone the constitutionality and morality of secession, especially since he pointed out the hypocrisy of supporting America’s founders in their quest for independence while condemning the Southerners for doing the same thing. (5) This wasn’t the red pilling moment for me though, as I already learned these arguments from Stubborn Luis and Dr. Darden Pyron, whom the latter was a history professor in Florida Idiot’s University. (The irony is not lost on me since I made my opinions on college well known.)
I also learned how Woodrow Wilson, being a progressive in domestic matters, was also a progressive in foreign policy. Wilson really wanted to impose his idealistic vision on the rest of the world, especially with the creation of the League of Nations and "making the world safe for Democracy." He was aggressive and an interventionist in both foreign and domestic matters. I can’t believe I looked up to him in the past, and that I believed him when he lied to the American People about trying to stay out of the war, when he prematurely chose to side with the British and French. (6) This was not my red pill moment either, because I heard about this from Glenn Beck and, again, Dr. Pyron.
Here Comes The Red Pill
Within government schools and my conservative patriot circles, I was told that FDR made an effort for the USA to stay out of the wars in Europe and Asia. Following the non-interventionist sentiment of the American people, FDR officially and faithfully remained neutral and only asked for a declaration of war when the Japanese unprovokingly attacked Pearl Harbor. I was told that Winston Churchill was a great conservative statesman, who rightly argued that Britain and France should have stopped Nazism early on before the invasion of Poland. That the Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils, and whom the Allies needed help in stopping the Nazi aggression. That World War II was a war between good vs evil, between freedom and tyranny, with the good guys being the victors...
...it was all a lie.
Winston Churchill was no hero. He was a monster. While Hitler and Stalin were among the worst kinds of human beings, Churchill nonetheless committed war crimes and was a serial liar.
Franklin Roosevelt did not remain neutral during the early years of the war. When the Germans and Japanese showed no interest in attacking the United States, FDR showed aggression towards both with actions including, but not limited to:
A . Selling/giving weapons and transports to Britain, China and the Soviet Union. (7)
B . Continuously breaking neutrality laws. (8)
C . Passing the Lend-Lease Act. (9)
D . Orchestrated the Greer incident. (10)
E . Imposed an oil embargo on the Japanese. (11)
While I may have a fascination with war, even I know that you should never start fights, only respond to them. Don’t initiate violence, but use violence only to defend your life and the innocent people under your care. It was becoming clear to me that the United States was an aggressor in this war, not a victim. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, the French leader, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese Junta were all warmongers who sought to impose their will on their enemies, both foreign and domestic.
There’s a lot more to what Dr. Woods wrote, but these revelations were shaking me to my core. I was barely holding on to my sanity when I read these next two pieces of information:
Operation Keelhaul
(With Arnhem Knights from Medal Of Honor: Frontline)
I think it is common knowledge on how friendly FDR, Churchill and Truman were to Joseph Stalin before and during the war. What Dr. Woods showed me was how that friendship extended to something sinister.
There were many, many Russians who hated communism, and for good reason. They even donned German uniforms in order to fight the Soviets. Considering the death and misery communism produces, one can hardly blame the Russians for choosing what they perceived was the lesser of two evils. When the American and British troops liberated the Russian POWs in German camps, the prisoners were promised that they were not required to return to the Soviet Union. That promise was a lie. The anti-communist Russians were either tricked or coerced to return to the very government that was going to kill or imprison them.
A horrifying example of this was what happened to the 200 Russian POWs in Fort Dix, New Jersey. They too were promised to not return to the Soviet Union. But since FDR wanted to please Uncle Joe, an order was carried out to have the Russians returned by any means necessary. Twice, the American soldiers tried to force the Russian POWs aboard the transport ship, and twice the latter resisted fiercely, even going so far as to wreck the ship they were on. In the third attempt, the Russian POWs were drugged and successfully shipped to the Soviet Union, where death and imprisonment awaited them. (12)
Upon discovering this information, rage and sorrow erupted within me. How could this happen? How can the American government and it’s military be capable of doing something this treacherous and evil when they were suppose to be fighting for a free world?!?!?!
A Free World?
What exactly did humanity gained from this destructive and costly war? Well, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japanese Imperialism were overthrowned. Many countries were liberated, particularly the pacific islands and Western Europe. I see that as a good thing in my book...
...Right...?
...Dr. Woods points out...facts that is typically ignored:
Poland, whose liberation was the reason Britain and France entered the war, was still not free. They just traded slave masters. In fact, all of Eastern Europe came under the iron grip of the Soviet Empire. With Adolf Hitler out of way, Joseph Stalin was ready to be on a quest for world domination.
China may be safe from Japanese Imperialism, thanks to the intervention of the Allies. But the Americans and Soviets provided a safe haven for the Communists under Mao Tse -Tung, who successfully subjected China into a dark age of slavery and death. Millions paid for it.
As for the Western countries, including the United States, we...have been giving up our freedoms ever since. Because of the rising threat of the Soviet Empire and the need for promised security, our governments have continuously increased taxes, deficits, debt, surveillance on both the innocent and guilty, violations of the constitution, undeclared wars against countries and groups who have not attacked us, government bureaucracies and regulations over the market, and dependents to the welfare state. In fact, the Cold War had given the US government the proper excuse to increase it’s size and control over the individual. (13)
Had the Unites States stayed out of the war, the Nazis and Soviets would have destroyed each other and become too weak to pursue further conquests for a long period of time. The Cold War would have never existed, meaning the State would not have grown exponentially. Meaning...America would have been more free today...(14)
As I read these facts from Tom Woods and his sources, a devastating and unbearable truth surfaced at the forefront of my mind:
(with Musique pour la tristesse de Xion from Kingdom Hearts: 358/2 Days)
...You mean to tell me...that the valiant efforts of the Band of Brothers...the duties fulfilled by the Fighting First...the heroic actions of Audie Murphy and other Medal of Honor recipients...the strategic exploits of Patton, MacArthur, and other generals...the hell and sacrifices our Marines went through in the Pacific...the telegrams received by family members of the dead...the widows and orphans that were created ...the sound of a poor man crying for his mother while holding his intestines on D-Day...all of this...was done...to make the world less free...?
...
...At this moment of clarity, my mind broke...I slowly closed Tom’s book, put it in a shelf, and did not read it anymore...at least for two months. Jesus once said that the truth shall set you free. He never said that it will cause you pain, turmoil, and a psychological coma. That’s what I felt during those two months. It does not feel good knowing that a lot of things I knew for more than twenty years...was a lie. A lie that gave me something to be proud of, a lie that encompassed my character. This whole journey...was very hard for me.
When I finally recovered from my psychological coma, I continued where I left off in Tom’s literature. The book ended with Clinton’s presidency, so I needed to get other sources to finish reading US history up to today, including the Tom Woods show and Stefan Molyneux's Truth series. While there were more Red Pill moments in my study of history from a libertarian perspective, none was as excruciatingly painful as learning the truth about World War II.
When I finished, I sat down in my room and contemplated on what I just learned. If I choose to accept this new information, I'm going to alienate a lot of conservative friends and family members I know. I will be looked upon negatively and my views will be misunderstood and misrepresented. And as a consequence of changing my paradigm shift, I will also have to change my course of actions on many fronts, including my career and future. But if I choose to ignore this truth and continue to spread the lies, my God and conscience will never let me sleep again. If I am to live a life of virtue and honesty, I must choose to believe what most would consider to be treasonous and heresy. I am ready for the coming storm.
Notes:
1. Woods, Thomas E. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. (Regnery Publishing, Inc. One Massachusetts Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20001. 2004) Pg. 1 - 10.
2. Ibid., 11 -16
3. Ibid., 31-42
4. Ibid., 139 - 156
5. Ibid., 61 - 76
6. Ibid., 109 - 132
7. Ibid., 175 and 180.
8. Ibid., 175 - 176
9. Ibid., 176
10. Ibid., 177 - 178
11. Ibid., 179 - 181
12. Ibid., 187 -189.
13. Ibid., 183 - 184
14. Ibid., 184
Don't worry. I went through a little libertarian phase during high school and a little bit of college, but I outgrew it.
Something I knew about, and I hate it. Another example is that the British gave up thousands of Cossacks who had surrendered to them to the USSR. The Cossacks resisted, but the British unfortunately managed to defeat them and handed them and their families over. The Russians immediately shot most of the officers. Anyone who wasn't shot went to Siberia.
It's possible that the officers on the spot made promises that they may not have been authorized to give, or that the government didn't know about it. At the end of the Nez Perce War, General Miles (or General Howard, I'm not sure) made a promise that the Nez Perce would be returned to their homeland. When General Sherman (who was essentially commander in chief of the army) heard about it, he rebuked it and chose to make an example of them (Chief Joseph and the Flight of the Nez Perce, by Kent Nerburn, Chapter 18, Pg. 291-293). When a British general was trying to negotiate with Indonesian rebels after WWII (they were rebelling against Dutch authority), he promised that they could keep their weapons, but then a higher up sent planes dropping leaflets that demanded that all the rebels turn in all weapons within a certain time limit, which outraged them (and the general on the scene.) The result was the Battle of Surabaya.
I think the above is incorrect. The Soviet Union was gaining the advantage as time went on. They won the battles of Moscow (Late 1941) and Stalingrad (1942-1943) largely on their own. They may have been slowed down, but not stopped, if the United States had stayed out of it. Furthermore, it's likely that the British Empire would not be able to muster the resources to take on the Italian and Normandy campaigns, which means that Soviet influence over Europe would have been much higher (would probably have conquered from Poland to western Germany, and tried to turn other countries into puppets or at least communist). No one other than Spain (which wisely stayed neutral) and Britain would have been free in Europe. After that, it wouldn't have taken much for the Soviets to turn against Japan in Manchuria and Korea anyway. They wouldn't have needed to pursue more conquests after that (though they'd have been exhausted from the effort); they would have had all the power they needed. And the Communists in China would still receive weapons and training in that scenario from the USSR.
Basically, the USSR would have eventually won, and the Communist influence around the globe would have been that much stronger.
Besides, Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, in response to an embargo meant to get them to leave China alone. They chose war over the alternatives (either watch as their navy and tanks ran out of gas or give up to the demands and lose face). We weren't at war with Germany at that point. Hitler decided to declare war two days later; the US didn't declare war on Germany.
Furthermore, the above quote seems to forget the Holocaust. What would have stopped Hitler from gassing, shooting, and otherwise murdering Jewish and other "undesirable" populations during all that? Considering the probable inability of the British to invade France in 1944 with US aid, more people would have died, even assuming a Soviet victory as early as could be (1946-1947, in this case).
Not to mention that the United States would have remained in an isolationist state; while a superpower, it wouldn't be doing much in a scenario where it just sat back and did nothing. It would have been more open to attack after the scenario discussed. Even in the best situation, I don't think we could have avoided the Cold War, other than crushing the Bolshevik revolution during the Russian Civil War and smashing Nazi Germany in 1933.
Not sure what we could have done about it, other than launch Operation Unthinkable (a theoretical, early nuclear war) against the USSR. Poland was too far away from France and Britain for them to help much in 1939; the Luftwaffe would have attacked and likely sunk any expeditionary force. While France probably could (and maybe should) have been more proactive (read, aggressive) against Germany, it's likely, that, given the tactical failures of the French military (spreading tanks out in "penny packets" among the infantry, lack of radio communication, etc.) that they may not have gotten far. They were using WWI strategy and tactics against an enemy who was already way ahead of them.
Same problem in 1945; Poland and other eastern countries were just way too far away, and people all over the world didn't want another war. I hate that Poland suffered under Communist tyranny for decades, but I don't see anything we could have done to stop it other than through another war.
You haven't alienated me at all. I am and will always remain your friend (cue the Mr. Spock joke
). As someone with a very deep knowledge and interest in WWII and its background - as a fellow student of history, if you want to put it like that - I just disagree with at least some of the points you've made (while also agreeing with at least one). I don't know what to think of Churchill, FDR, or really anyone else. I also don't like governments gaining too much power, but I don't have as much knowledge about the government between 1936 to the present to really know what to say.
I do believe that, after a long, dark night of communist rule, that the nations of eastern Europe were freed of that oppression, and, until I'm told different from a heavenly source, I believe that no dark night lasts forever (I think you can get what I'm hinting towards with that).
I don't like some realities either (Islam not being a religion of peace, rape and grooming gangs in countries that let them in, whites being targeted in South Africa, SJWism taking over countries). And it's difficult to face those realities. I agree.
I would also recommend (though not force upon you to do so) taking history from more than one source. I've read four different accounts from modern authors (and one from Bernal Diaz) on Hernan Cortes' conquest of Mexico, and somewhere or another they all say something different from what the others say (though they agree in general things). I've also watched two videos, one by Historia Civilis and another by BazBattles, and each of them have stuff that contradicts what the other says.
TLDR; historians don't always agree, and history and war must be carefully examined and studied.
I apologize if I've disturbed you with what I've said. I'm not trying to discredit you or abandon you. God bless, and I pray for your peace.
A lie is a lie, just because they put it down and call it history doesn’t make it true
4860207
That is a good point. I've read how both Generals Grant and Sherman made promises to the Confederates who surrendered to the former, only for Secretary Stanton to disregard the promise and attempted to undermine the Confederate soldiers in a VERY harsh way. I concede your argument.
I'm not so sure, because the main advantage the Soviets had was numbers, which they kept piling on and on in the battlefield. Another thing to consider is that while the Soviets and the Nazis were socialists, the latter government had relations with private businesses that gave the military an upward edge in military technology. And the Nazis had better military commanders, since they never engaged in the purge like the Soviets did in the previous decade, which severely damaged their military competence and organization.
The United States was not in a position to criticize the Japanese for their imperial expansion when the former did the same thing in the Spanish War, Pancho Villa incident, military expeditions in the Western hemipshere in the 1910's, Conquest of Hawaii, and other military interventions.
And while it is rightly argued that Japan and Germany made the first strike, it is wrong to say that they were not provoked into doing so. And Roosevelt was already engaging in indirect warfare with Germany, Hitler just made it official to get it over with, though it can be said that Hitler made a huge blunder legitimizing the US by declaring war first.
And don't forget about the Greer incident.
6 million Jewish deaths, which is horrible, is small compared to the 20 million or so deaths produced by the Soviets. No matter who won, the innocent would still be dead either by the Nazis or Soviets.
Well, this is the point of disagreement between us. I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy (Isolationist and non-interventionist are two different things by the way.) where we declare war only when we are attacked or facing invasion. I don't believe in going to war to help other countries, because that's their problem.
And if your scenario about the Soviets conquering most of Asia and Europe is correct, the USA would still have many advantages because of our geography and superior capitalist economy, which would translate to building a superior military. Then again, we are both dealing in hypotheticals, so who knows.
Noted. I will continue to read from both conservative and libertarian points of view. I have both by the way, because I read the "Patriot's History of the United States" before I read Tom's book. But you are right, read more than one source.
Can't say I agree. One was going to lose, one was going to win. Neither side was going to capitulate until they were completely and utterly destroyed and literally couldn't fight anymore. For the Soviets, they were not only facing a second German invasion (the first was in WW1), but the Nazis were waging a war of annihilation, and showed absolutely no mercy to the locals (which is why they didn't receive more support). The Germans hated the Bolsheviks with a passion, and were looking to obliterate them. Furthermore, the nazis and communists hated each other, both for racial and ideological reasons.
If one side broke, it would likely be the Germans, who had to cope with a two-front war and a crippled air force. The only way I see Germany beating the Soviets is if Britain surrendered before the Battle of Britain started, Barbarossa began sooner, the troops were properly prepared for winter combat, and Hitler would have to be more competent. Not only that, but the Japanese would have to have not attacked China, expanded its army, and attacked the Soviets in conjunction with the Germans (and they'd have to invest in tanks early on because their armor was pathetic). Also, Italy not being awful at everything would have helped.
Either way, Europe would be dominated by Nazism (prompting the holocaust on a much grander scale) or communism (our timeline's post-war Europe on steroids).