What exactly is the purpose of a university?  Over a thousand years, it has changed in many ways.  At one time, universities were places where religious individuals were educated.  Over time, the curriculum expanded to bring in more secular topics. Each topic, however, was based on certain time-tested precepts and had a rigorous set of standards.  Knowledge of Latin and ancient Greek was often required as the writings of the ancients were thought to provide a basis for both morality and discipline of thought.

Fast forward to today, where the very concepts of merit, objectivity and discipline seem to have gone by the wayside.  Instead, we often find that greater “truths” are being offered based on a view of the world that provides no concrete base of values.  Moral relativism is being offered which if followed to its logical conclusion, creates a system which only provides a shelter for those who are not capable of living a disciplined, logic world.  That is because moral relativism always offers an excuse for one’s failures and shortcomings.  The individual is always a victim.  Ultimately there cannot be any good or bad, for everyone ultimately becomes a victim, of race, sex, economics, height, weight, intelligence, self-discipline, and so forth.  The list is endless.

The attached article about a modern-day university, sponsored by tax-payer dollars (so far taxpayers have not been labeled a victim group) should make us all try to image living in a world filled with endless victims and excuses.  That would be a very scary brave new world indeed.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-university-of-houstons-radical-dei-bureaucracy

One of my favorite stops in London is the iconic Connaught hotel which is near the U.S. embassy. I remember the first time I stayed at the hotel as I decided to walk down the wide staircase rather than take the elevator.  The beautiful woodwork and paneling was home to paintings which could have been comfortable at many museums.  As I reached the ground floor, I noticed that all the males were well dressed and I immediately did an about face, rushed up the stairs and donned a sport coat and tie. To this day when in London, I take care to dress a step above the herd to better immerse myself in the feel of the city and its history.

Recently, I was pleased to find that the long-awaited cigar lounge has been opened in the hotel.  Years ago, one could go to the Coburg Bar, have a cigar, and discuss with the excellent staff the various whiskeys, scotches and other libations while imaging the time when some of the great statesmen of Great Britain enjoyed the same room.  Then came the wonders of the anti-smoking campaign and an activity that had been perfectly reasonable was suddenly a threat to humanity. It was a victory in the war on men. Oh well, such is “progress”.

Entering the hotel, I asked for directions to the cigar lounge, and was taken to a door in one of the bars which opened onto a well-lit, comfortable room which had a fantastic wall size window which looked out onto the street.  The choice of cigars was excellent with excellent Cubans at reasonable (for London and Cuban) prices.  The drink menu was acceptable but unfortunately the standard British measure for alcohol was followed so I might suggest that you save time and order a double.

It was a joy to sit in a well cushioned chair and look out onto the street, even though the day was dry and cool.  What fun it would be to be there when it was raining, and you could feel safely separated from the cold and damp!  And, during the evening, it is amusing to walk by the window from the outside to view the chosen few who have found a refuge from the slings and arrows of an increasingly silly world.

In the end, that room gave me hope that there are still those individuals who remember and desire some of the romantic visions we may have of the past.

In Helsinki, I was fortunate to find (thanks to my wife’s searching on the internet) the oldest cigar shop in Finland.  The name is Havanna Aitta and was founded in 1897.  This shop is clean, well-stocked with both Cuban and non-Cuban cigars at reasonable (for Europe) prices.  Located about three blocks from the port with its excellent open-air market, it is tucked in one of those old ornate buildings that Helsinki has taken great care to preserve.

They take pride in their product as exhibited by their expertise in describing their product, be it a cigar for casual walking or serious enjoyment with a find liquor.  When I asked them to snip a walking cigar, the staff found that they were not happy with the cut and immediately replaced the cigar so that the cut could be just perfect.

Friendly, professional and with a nice collection which will suit your individual need, I can recommend this shop to all.

Address:  Pohjoinen Makasiinikatu 6, 00130 Helsinki

Phone:  + 358 9 625583

Email: havanna.kauppa@gmail.com

Victor Davis Hanson in his The Father of Us All; War & History, Ancient & Modern gives due credit to The Age of Battles as one of the finest examples of military history as indeed it is. Since it was first published in 1991, Weigley gives a continual history of warfare, mostly in Western Europe, from Breitenfeld to Waterloo. Starting with the revolutionary tactics of Gustavus Adolphus and ending with the defeat of Napoleon, the author traces the continual quest for the “decisive battle” as a short cut to victory.

After the terrible bloodbath of the Thirty Years War, which left Germany devastated with millions of dead, it seemed as if Europe had made a conscious decision that warfare had to be restructured. One of the key steps to this process was Hugonis Grotius, the historical rules for the limitation of war were formalized. These rules were loosely going back to the rules of chivalry (which were never terribly effective) covered dealing with civilians, plunder, and more. Many rulers in Europe recognized that while war was not going to disappear, they could at least try to limit the overall damage. It was amazing that with the rise of nation states and greater concentration of power and wealth, those who ruled suddenly realized that they had a personal stake in limiting wars which could be dangerous to their position and existence.

The military revolution went hand in hand with the greater solidification of centralized power. Gustavus Adolphus the leader of a small and poor European state (Sweden) realized that he had to take his disadvantage and turn it into a positive. The result was a small, highly trained, well disciplined, well fed and amazingly for the time, one that was paid on time. The result was an outstanding force of cavalry (changed and trained on Sweden’s wartime experiences in Poland) backed by a solid infantry trained on shock tactics. For example, the traditional cavalry tactic with the introduction of pistols was for the cavalry to charge the enemy, then stop and fire a volley and retreat. The effect as normally poor, as attempting to accurately wield a primitive pistol which was not only inaccurate but of small penetrating power hardly seemed worth the effort. Adolphus remembering the shock impact of the heavy Polish cavalry trained his cavalry to smash into the enemy formations, break then and then allow the infantry to finish the battle. For a while, he was the terror of Europe, but he ran into problems which he had not foreseen, such as the rise of the centralized state (or other kingdoms) which were larger and wealthier.

Therein lay the rub; how could a general win a war by scoring a decisive battle when the enemy was able how to tap into its own military advantages, such as manpower and wealth. Famously, Louis XIV restructured his system of taxation, developed a competent bureaucracy, and hired some of the best officers in Europe. The result was a dramatic increase in the size of the French military and in the professionalism of the military. Standard uniforms, drills, command structures, etc. all went to create a military that began to move like a machine instead of a mob. In particular, the French army the innovations in artillery made many of the old defensive infantry tactics an invitation to slaughter. Finally, instead of an army numbering ten or fifteen thousand, the French army expanded to number hundreds of thousands. How was a small state like Sweden to compete with power like that?

Unlike many military historians, the author manages to blend the personalities, goals and most importantly, innovations which led to each leader or generals’ temporary success on the battlefield. He also shows how the development of a professional military sped up the development of the industries necessary for it’s being.

He ends the book with the battle of Waterloo, where Napoleon, short of cavalry, surrounded by generals who were past their prime (as was he), head of an army from a nation which had already suffered a million dead from his reign was defeated by an polyglot army made up of, for the most part, traditionally second rate infantry but held together by Wellington who had nothing but distain for the average soldier. Although future generals and admirals would dream of a “decisive battle,” the time for any chance of such a battle has long passed. The modern state is too diverse with too many resources to disappear due to one loss, no matter how great. We have seen during the twentieth century how far the state will go and how much of its population it will sacrifice to survive.

This is the third time I have read the book and each time I have found the book stimulating and a reminder of the skills needed by successful leaders not only in the military, but in business or any endeavor where much is at stake. The ability to adapt and innovate is the one constant lesson to be learned from this work.

It must be disheartening to realize that even one’s virtue signaling was a cruel joke.  Wearing a mask did not have a positive impact during the time of Covid, wearing a mask could actually be bad for your health.  Oh, the agony of it all!  All that time in one’s car all alone, looking out on those fools who did not wear a mask, believing that one was making the world a bit safer.  All that righteous anger, the stern looks, and verbal abuse heaped on those mere mortals who did not adhere to those who “followed science”.  It was all theater, it meant nothing.  And then the indignity of finding out that one was taking an action that could have a negative impact on one’s health!  Say it isn’t so!

It does make one remember some of those silly folk sayings, doesn’t it?  Such as:

• If all your friends jumped off a roof, would you do it?
• Believe nothing you hear, half of what you see and only one fourth of what you know to be true.
• He who follows the crowd has many companions.
• Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
• If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.

The article linked below offers what could be, a very common-sense medical discovery.  Yet somehow this possibility was overlooked even though there are studies reflecting these conclusions going back over a decade.  And it does not address the question of hygiene from the repeated wearing of the same mask over a period of days or longer. 

Finally, one more saying:  man is the only animal that can be skinned more than once.  Next time, perhaps we all need to be a bit more skeptical of what the herd says, believes and does.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-harm-caused-by-masks

It is amazing how many of those who claim to “follow science” only look as far as the tip of their nose. I believe it is because sometimes they do not have the expertise or worldly experience to consider all the factors which may impact their own personal or messianic agenda.  At other times, it is because they do not wish to be disturbed by some inconvenient facts, such as cost, contributing factors, outside influences which might upset their wonderful vision, etc.  Sometimes, it is just plain ignorance and laziness that allows them to disregard important realities which would upset or even destroy their vision.

The attached article begins to bring up numerous factors which will impact the vision of EVs.  One of the most obvious questions is whether EVs are as “green” as proclaimed and why is it that certain key factors are ignored by their loudest cheerleaders?  Ignorance, laziness or just an age-old human desire to believe in something that is promised as a quick and easy “fix”?  Unfortunately, history has shown us that the “quicker and easier” the fix, the more costly it is in the long run.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/electric-vehicles-and-carbon-emissions

I have often said that there is a formula to many government actions;

1. Pass a law/regulation, etc. with (we hope) the best of intentions.  These new laws/regulations are designed to meet some real or imagined need, desire, request either made by some special interest group or political goal.  Seldom are they passed at the request of the average citizen who is too busy trying to exist and move ahead with their lives.
2. The new program is instituted and funded and of course, new government employees improve the original idea which was found to be of such great importance to society.
3. Typically, the new governmental department or agency finds that the original goal is much more complex than expected and so studies must be made, which of course, demands time and money.  Or it is found that the new regulations as laid out by the new department do not really address or solve the original goal, but the agency does find other areas where it can “help” the average citizen.
4. With a new purpose or idea, the agency goes back to its source of funds (typically the Congress, State Assembly, City Council, etc.) and asks for additional funds to correct the problems caused by its own actions and to expand the scope of its work.

In other words, a problem is found, a solution is provided, it is found that the solution only made the problem worse and to correct the problem it has created, more money must be spent to correct its own bad actions.

This is being worked out by my local level of government, the City Council of Long Beach California.  The problem is that Measure MA was approved by the voters in 2016.  This allowed the legal sale of marijuana and the city put in place certain rules/regulations to monitor and capitalize on said sales.  The problem was that the rules/regulations were both complex and expensive for those who were going to be granted a license to sell the drug.  In fact, they were so complex and expensive that one of the goals of the original Measure was made worse; instead of eliminating the illegal sale of the drug, it has made the sale from illegal dealers larger. The illegal sale of the drug is estimated to be at least three times larger than the legal sales.  This means that the city is not receiving all the money from the legal sales of a drug which magically became legal and encouraged by the same government that had previously seen the drug as something illegal. When the expected tax revenue is not realized, you can count on the government to do something about it.

An ordinary person might believe that if the rules/regulations/taxes are too high to create a good business, the simple answer would be to re-examine the rules/regulations/taxes which are creating the problem.  One might even suggest letting individuals with real business experience do the work as at least they know how to live within a budget and actually create something that is viable and productive.  No, that would be far too simple and logical.

In its wisdom, the City Council has decided that the solution is to offer the now legal drug dealers a tax reduction if they can abide by additional rules which will increase their cost of doing business at a rate which is theoretically lower than the amount of tax reduction. Brilliant! Everyone in business knows that increased regulations, especially those which increase fixed costs, are the sure way to increased profits. Not to worry, as if the tax revenue to the city does not increase thanks to this solution, I am sure the City Council will have mor great ideas how to fix the problem.

And, just to show that they have their best thinking caps on, the City Council is putting its best Woke foot forward by ensuring that equity in drug dealerships will be reached.  You can apply if you are unemployed and are poor.  Of course, where you are going to get the capital for your business is not included in the new idea, nor is the question of what landlord will want to accept a drug dealer who most likely has no independent business experience and little money.  Unless of course, the new drug dealer has a secret partner who is funding the new business.  Sounds like a strategy for success to me.

From July 1942 until the end of the war, Sepp Allerberger was a sniper fighting against the Soviet Union.  During that time, his official tally of 257 confirmed kills, made him the second most deadly sniper in the German Army (the record of 345 kills was held by Mathias Hetzenauer).  It is important to note that a sniper “kill” had to meet certain requirements, such as it had to be done during an actual sniper assignment (ordinary defensive or offensive kills are not counted) and must be confirmed by either an officer or an NCO.  Allerberger states only that his individual kills, taking unconfirmed sniper kills was much higher. 

Allerberger did not come from a military family; his home was a small village on the Austrian side of the Bavarian Alps near Salzburg.  He was drafted at the age of eighteen and trained as a machine gunner.  After his first battle, he realized that he was a marked man for machine gunners were prime targets of the enemy.  He decided to try for a safer job and accidently found out that he was an excellent shot.  As the German Army was behind the Soviet in the development and training of snipers, it was a “learn as you go” decision.  He quickly learned the trade and was highly valued at the front where many assignments were to kill his Soviet counterpart who was causing losses in his vicinity.  Sniper to sniper battles pit individual skill, patience, and determination at the personal level and yet Allerberger does not exhibit any emotion other than pride for his victories.

As noted, all kills had to be confirmed and that could be a problem as many in the German Army felt that being a sniper was a “dirty” job.  Hiding, sneaking up on the enemy, killing when ever possible, including when a soldier is going to the bathroom carried a bad odor.  This view extended to the artillery officers who somehow believed throwing a high explosive shell miles at an unseen and unsuspecting enemy was more “honest”.  For the infantry, enemy snipers were hated thought to fight dirty, but their own snipers were well liked and protected.  War has its own value system.

Given that many snipers were killed after 15-20 shots, his score is amazing.  He seemed to lead a charmed life, receiving no major wounds, and suffered only minor scratches.  His detailed descriptions of many encounters are excellent, and one clearly see the barbarity of warfare on the Eastern Front. 

His story brings to light the mentality of an army in retreat. Months of constant retreat and serious losses in manpower and equipment left the average soldier demoralized, dirty, hungry and constantly looking over their shoulders at the Russians who seemed to have unlimited resources. During the retreats, seriously wounded men were left behind even though everyone knew that the oncoming Russians would at best, quickly kill them or more likely, torture them before killing them. One has to remember that the Russians were not only out for victory, but also for revenge for the deeds of the Germans on their homes and loved ones. It was a war with little or more mercy. Often, the Russians had more to fear from their own officers who subjected them to beatings, penal battalions and early on in the war, cases of cannibalism.

This is only the third book I have read by a veteran which reflects a certain mindset.  Ernst Junger’s Storm of Steel is one example, another is by an American, James Megellas’s All the Way to Berlin. Reading their stories, one sees an individual who calmly picks up a weapon, kills will great proficiency and then afterwards, go on to lead a normal life. They offer a fascinating view of war by very uncommon men.

When he became President Obama, he said that he wanted to fundamentally change the United States. His economic plan managed to increase the median family income by $3,200 over an eight-year period while at the same time increasing the number of people living in poverty by 787,000. When Joe Biden became president, he said that he saw it as an opportunity, “fundamentally transform the country.”  The result thus far has been that the average American family has lost between $5,600-$7,000 in income in only two years (Heritage.org 4/21/23).

Compare this to 2018, when under President Trump incomes went up $4,600; an increase in one year that was forty-five percent larger than during the eight years of the Obama administration. How was that possible?

Perhaps asking “how was that possible” is the wrong question. One might better ask, “what did Presidents’ Obama and Biden do to basically wreck a system designed and historically capable of incredible growth and wealth creation.”  Could it be that they did not understand the basic system of how the economy works? Could it be that were ignorant of past presidents who had led successful economies? Could it simply be that they believed they were smarter than anyone else? Somehow those who talk about being on the “right side of history” seem to ignore the lessons of history. Or, maybe it is just human nature; having winning such high office is like becoming a king, the new President has a burning desire to show his brilliance by doing something bold and daring.

We must ask ourselves if these two presidents actually believe that more government regulation, more government control, more deficit spending and now, inflation will lead to greater prosperity  Are we to believe that suddenly, a top-down centralized planned economy is going to be better for its citizens when there has never been a successful society based on those precepts?  Oh, I know, “it will be different this time.” 

The two articles linked below offer not only a history of recent results but also solutions to correct our current problems. Dare we hope that we have leaders who will own up to their mistakes?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-incomes-americans-kevin-mccarthy-new-york-stock-exchange-dc3bd179?page=1

Siberia after it was conquered by the Russian Empire, was consider a land of huge wealth, from the priceless furs (a single Ermine pelt was enough to buy a good farm in Russia) to timber and gold, it was also known as the world’s largest prison without a roof.  A land where landless free peasants to go to in order to escape the tyranny of the Tsars and to build a new life, it also served as a great dumping ground for all manner of criminals, both political and non-political (one could be sent to Siberia for life long exile for being a vagrant).  As the population of Russia grew, and the central government could not provide the services for the population, Siberia became a way for lazy local officials to get rid of those they considered problematic.

The journey to Siberia until the advent of the Trans-Siberian railway was most on foot.  Imagine walking, 6 days out of 7, week in, week out, in the Siberian summer and winter for one to two years just to reach your place of exile.  And, your term of punishment did not begin until you completed that journey.  During that journey you were, unless supported by your family who could provide you funds, at the mercy and budget of the prison system which provided a minimum of food and clothing both during the trek and at your place of exile.  The system was so terrible, that some male prisoners would often write their wives telling them to sell everything and come to Siberia where the government was providing each prisoner with land, a cow, horse, house and funds.  In reality, nothing was provided and when the wife arrived with children in hand, their husbands would sell them all into prostitution in order to get enough money to live.

After the term of punishment was completed, as the theory went, the ex-prisoners who had been taught discipline and hard work, would stay in Siberia and begin new farms which would colonize the vast land.  In reality, the prisoners had been so brutalized by the guards, other prisoners and hard labor, that they turned to the only things they had really learned in exile; stealing, forgery, murder, etc.  The large numbers of former prisoners would often wander in bands, laying siege to individual farms and even smaller villages and towns.