Military history has a lot of detail about why someone failed or won a battle. But the most important and consistent theme in battle history is dismissed as “The Thirteen Division wasn’t there.”

If you don’t talk about WHY it wasn’t there, you are ignoring one of the most important phenomena in the whole panorama of history.

And, not surprisingly, the officers who are raised on this kind of history end up saying that they lost a battle because “They didn’t show up.”

In the Greatest Generation, many soldiers didn’t fire a single shot in a battle. Many of the Heroes of D-Day lost their weapons and didn’t even realize it.

One fairly realistic estimate was that a fifth of the troops did eighty percent of the fighting.

Their training, after all, had been tough, but it had been tough to show how Macho the sergeant was. Then a group of men who had been trained to be meek poured out onto Omaha Beach.

But no military textbook is going to even MENTION the guys who lost their rifles and didn’t notice, much less the ones who simply didn’t join in the shooting others were doing in the general direction of the enemy.

And when you beat a man down until he is motivated only by his fear of the sergeant, what do you expect him to do when the sergeant, like most bullies, is busy protecting his own ass and the guy on the other side won’t just make him do laps, but will KILL him?

Just as he did what the sergeant said, he will do what the guy with a gun and a will to kill him wants him to do. That is human nature. That is why our modern US Army is better trained than any American soldiers were in the first half of the last century, when training meant macho sergeants, not macho soldiers.

We learn little from major disasters because no one is interested in the causes. They are interested in blame, either placing it or avoiding it. The verdict will always be, “human error,” but precious little attention is paid to the exact nature of that “human error.”

Either the pro-white cause is hopeless or its leaders have failed. This is one reason AIL is so popular with our present leaders: It’s not their fault.

The catch in that is that, if things are hopeless, what is the point of the movement and of its leaders?

Lord Nelson explained how I almost emptied to the Opposing Views section of SF by using the Mantra. To my amazement, he said he had not been “criticizing” me! No way, Jose! That was giant compliment, and could be nothing else.

But a lot of other people watched the anti-watched left flat when the Mantra wheel went over them, but no leader would ever mention it.

I have done that sort of thing for decades and no leadership has ever noted that my approach worked. I finally figured out one of the simplest and most basic rules of human behavior, so simple that you never THINK about it.

No leaders of ANYTHING like any change of direction. This is not an attack on our leadership because you will NEVER elect a leadership of ANYTHING that does not automatically react negatively to a change in direction.

The lesson is worth bringing up, but it must also be fitted into reality. As long as human beings are our leadership, they will always end up opposing, or in most cases totally ignoring, a new direction