Martin Amis wrote, “The chief demerit of the Marxist program was its point-by-point defiance of human nature”. Yuri Slezkine creates a solid argument that Marxism was a change of faith and that it was a cult, filled with dogmas that defied logic and human history.  Could a parallel be drawn between Marxism and the early Church?  Both were fueled by dogmas, their gospel was spread by zealous “preachers” who devoted their lives to their new religion; they both had martyrs, a hierarchy of disciples and believed that they were able to create a new and better world.  Marxism went one step further in that it’s view of human nature was entirely against the course of history, but their dogma answered “history” in that the nature of man had been corrupted by all societies throughout history.  Thus, while claiming to be founded on “science”, the dogma of Marxism discounted all known evidence.  With that dogma, they unlike the Church, claimed that they were able to create a “new man”, freed from the chains of the past, of the “artificial” realities of the world, able to create a world filled with happy, satisfied, productive individuals.

Of course, no one believed that true Marxism could be achieved overnight, and so there had to be a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.  During that time, priests, aristocrats, kulaks, capitalist, the majority of academics and others needed to be purged. The bourgeois institution of marriage was also to be amended so that women would not be oppressed.  The failure of the Soviet experiment of easy divorce quickly created a problem so the need for the family was recognized (at least until the children could be raised almost entirely by the State).  And, this helped to eventually be a major problem for the longevity of Communism, for parental influence could not be entirely countered.

Joseph Kennedy, the father of JFK, was a rumrunner and a womanizer who used his money to become Ambassador to the United Kingdom during the presidency of FDR. Known for his anti-semitism and pro-Nazi views, his tenure as Ambassador was a trail for FDR, but he needed the financial support and Kennedy’s connections with the underworld and unions to win an election.

Kennedy was in London at the start of the Blitz but quickly moved his office away from the official Embassy to his home in the suburbs of London. Within the Foreign Office, the joke of the day was: “I always thought my daffodils were yellow until I met Joe Kennedy.”   The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson, pp 194

You must hand it national leaders from the U.S. and western European states; they are experts at making hypocrisy a fine art. While preaching to their own population and the developing nations about the importance of going “green”, they institute policies that are actually counterproductive to their noble goals; they continue to build coal powered plants, develop and exploit fossil fuel mining in third world countries, mandate bio-fuels which have no positive impacts on the environment and drive up the price of food for the poorest of the poor, and continue to fool their own citizens about the waste of billions of their own currency on “green” projects that have already failed.

How long will we allow our “leaders” to preach to us, the individuals who pay the actual price for their follies? When will we stop believing that without better technology, the concept of achieving their nobility stated goals are nothing but hot air and a waste of valuable resources? Hit the link below for more information on their follies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rich-worlds-climate-hypocrisy-energy-fossil-fuel-wind-solar-panel-india-poverty-power-battery-storage-11655654331?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Has anyone noticed that the recent group of mass murderers are 1) young males and 2) all marijuana users? It may not be polite to say it, as so many (such as the state of California for example) have a major vested interest in the legalization of marijuana (to the tune in California of about $345,000,000 a year). It is also not polite to mention that today’s marijuana which is so much more potent than the weed that their grandparents smoked, is capable of inducing psychosis such as “scromiting” which is a combination of screaming and vomiting. Given that the brain does not mature until about the age of twenty-five, whose interest is it in to provide young, impressionable, immature minds with a drug that is clearly dangerous to a particular age group?

Yet, in all the talk about gun control with the silly demands from some that the voting age be lowered, the use of marijuana by immature individuals seems to be ignored. The link below is to an excellent article which points out disturbing facts that seem to either be ignored or totally buried by doctors, editors, and government officials. I fear we have unleashed a monster on our youth, and everyone will have to pay a price in destroyed lives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cannabis-and-the-violent-crime-surge-marijuana-pot-use-thc-shootings-psychosis-mental-11654540197

History can be the best of subjects or the worse depending on your individual mindset, for any event in history can be a huge puzzle that can and does cause debate years and years after any given event. History is not as bad as the saying about economics (ask four economist a question as to what will happen and you will receive five opinions), for at least with history there are certain proven facts, records, confessions, etc.

In this historical novel, the author pulls on diaries, interviews, memoirs, and other sources to provide the reader with an excellent overview of numerous personalities (Churchill, Halifax, Goebbels, Goring, Beaverbrook, and others), their strategies, fears, personalities, and so on and how by interacting with one another, they created the saga of the Battle of Britain. How close to defeat was England at that time and how great the burden on the shoulders of men like Churchill, Beaverbrook, and others as they had to hold together and create a national will against not only the forces of Hitler, but also against those within their own country and even cabinet who wished to take a different course. How easy it would have been to simply make some sort of deal with Hitler in the vain hope that he, who had broken every agreement, could be trusted.

A couple of days ago I was driving back from a business trip to Las Vegas; it was 108 degrees outside, but I was tooling along at 75 miles per hour, had the air on plus the radio so everything was fine. I realized that if I were driving an electric car (fueled by oil and coal), that I would have had to turn off the radio and roll down the windows (and thus enjoy the wonderful hot desert air) and reduce my speed to less than 65 to make it home. That is until I ran into a major jam which had me crawling, bumper to bumper for an extra hour. Whoops, I would have been in serious trouble with an electric car. The normal four-hour trip was extended to five hours and had I been traveling at the lower speed, another hour beyond that assuming I did not have to stop for a charge and assuming that I would not have had a dead battery in that massive traffic jam.

I am sure that there are many folks who can find that an electric car will meet their needs for short shopping trips and various chores. I am also sure that given the predicted rolling black outs, and the behind schedule construction of charging stations, there are many others who like me will be reluctant to give up our current vehicles. It is a choice, but we should be realistic about our choices and not live in a fool’s paradise. Nothing is free and anyone who believes that an electric vehicle does not contribute to CO2 is fooling themselves. The link below is worth a view as it helps to put things in proper perspective. Invest a few minutes and see reality.

Over the decades, I have read many books, transcripts, interviews, done personal interviews, etc. regarding the killing squads and death camps of the Nazi regime. “How” I wondered, “could a cultured nation like Germany march so easily into the brutal murder of millions of individuals who the deemed as sub-human?”  This is certainly not a new question as it has been debated for decades, by those who like Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” theory to those who felt that there was some sort of missing component to the German soul. Perhaps there were two types of killers, especially in the SS; the bureaucrats such as Eichman and the officers who stood at the receiving dock at Auschwitz, and those who murdered by executing men, women, and children in the killing pits of Ukraine, Poland, and the rest of Europe. Could they have been indoctrinated by their SS training to believe that they were doing good, freeing the world of vermin to create a better world? But, what about the Police battalions? They were made up of ordinary police officers, men trained up uphold the law, yet they were able to overcome their training and became killers as deadly as the SS Eizengruppen. There were also sadists such as the hardened criminals and perverts of the Kaminski Brigade and the 36^th SS division under the command of Oskar Dirlewanger, but even they were viewed with distain by the regular SS divisions. It was a question that is still debated today by historians, psychologists, and others; was it due to their training, beliefs, or a mass psychosis. Somehow another group of men, who were under strict military control managed to become even worse that the groups I have mentioned; that group is the officers and enlisted men of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy

At the end of World War II, Europe lay destroyed; millions displaced, millions dead, tens of thousands of cities, towns and cities burned out and a manufacturing base almost totally bombed out of existence. During several meetings between Stalin and George C. Marshall, it became clear to Marshall that the Soviets were not going to co-operate with the rebuilding of Europe. The main point of contention centered on Germany; it was Marshall’s belief that Germany was the main economic powerhouse of continental Europe and that it’s resurrection would lead to growth and political stability in Europe. Stalin also realized that, but a strong and productive Europe was not in his best interests; let Europe continue to live in poverty and hunger and the political instability will benefit Stalin.

After their last meeting, Marshall knew that it was in the best interest not only of Europe, but also the United States to rebuild Europe. Just seven weeks after his meeting with Stalin, Marshall developed a plan for the rebuilding of Europe and presented it to the President Harry Truman. The thought of spending billions of dollars to rebuild Europe was not popular but President Truman was firmly in favor of the plan. But how to get Congress to go along with the plan? Truman was considered a political hack by many and achieved the office of President only due to the death of the venerated Roosevelt.

Clark Clifford, then a political advisor to the President, recommended that the bill be called the Truman Plan, but Truman replied, “If I send the plan up the hill (with Truman’s name), it will quiver a couple of times, go belly up and die. Even the worst Republican will vote for the plan if Marshall’s name is on it” and so the European Recovery Act became known as the Marshall Plan.

George C. Marshall, also honored as the “Architect of Victory” for his work building the U.S. military both before and during World War II, went on to give an eleven-minute speech at Harvard in front of fifteen thousand which changed the course of history. As predicted by the President, Congress in part because of the great esteem they had for Marshall, appropriated billions for the rebuilding and resurgence of Western Europe. Monies were offered to Eastern European nations but being under the control of the Soviets, they were directed to refuse any monies, as Stalin feared a strong U.S. presence in the captive nations.

The plan was a remarkable success and lead to the West German state, the regrowth of Europe and the economic boom of the United States. In the background, the political realism and concern for actual success stood President Harry Truman. His ego, self-confidence and political savvy was strong enough to ensure the success of a plan that saved Europe. That is a test of a true leader.

Is it possible that the golden days of being “woke” and check-the-box ESG are in the past? As the incessant and mostly silly demands of a small minority can never be satisfied or realized and, as the actual costs of the ESG movement are beginning to be dumped on middle- and lower-class citizens around the world, a reaction is taking place. Suddenly, it is the corporations themselves who are having to pay the price for their ventures into woke and ESG areas. They are pushed in part by vocal minorities and youthful employees as well as a desire by often weak-willed senior management which desires to be part of an elite club. How exactly will the head of Disney explain to the mass of his shareholders the fifty-billion-dollar loss in market value in less than two months? Do you really want to go to Pizza Hut where your child who is in kindergarten can receive a free book on the glory of drag queens? “All I wanted was a pizza!” Boycott! Suddenly, taking shots at politicians and ignoring your customer base has a genuine cost.

The link below to an article in the Financial Times shows that a backlash has developed as shareholders are putting their financial well being ahead of the feel-good efforts of corporate management. It is an interesting game to watch and may very well be reflected in the upcoming Novembe elections.

https://www.ft.com/content/e952d6bf-d00e-433c-baf3-2673f925a229

The desire we must “do something” by government fiat to “solve” a problem has always been an amazing idea to me. It seems that if there is a problem, we expect government to fix it by making new laws, creating new forms and applications, hiring more people to oversee the forms and of course, spending more money all in an effort to “do something.”  In the end, all we have done is create a vast bureaucracy which manages to increase in size each year while not really solving the problem. How has that Federal department of education worked out, or the Federal energy department? Have you noticed how the schools are better or how we eliminated rolling black outs? No? But the government “did something” didn’t it?

The attached article says it all so much better than I every could (which is why the author writes for the Wall Street Journal), but it should make you stop and think about what we should really expect from our governments at all levels. Recently, a U.S. Senator was attacked (verbally) because he dared to suggest that Federal laws have a “sunset” clause, which simply means that every five years, those laws and yes, agencies would be reviewed to see what they have accomplished and if they should continue to be funded. Imagine that! Accountability in government? What a crazy idea! Maybe, just maybe, that is a revolutionary idea whose time has come.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-do-something-wont-work-uvalde-texas-shooting-gun-control-policy-politics-11654115980?mod=opinion_featst_pos2