One of the great lessons of the recent pandemic, was the realization that the average American can be as cowed by the authorities as anyone else in the world. The image of the rugged, individualistic American has been severely damaged, and it shall be difficult to regain. It appears that most Americans are as sheep like as the typical Europeans who have left their individual sense of worth in the hands of the bureaucracy generations ago in exchange for the welfare state.

I fully realize that Covid was a new virus and that consequently, there were destined to be many errors in attacking it. That is to be expected and anyone who expects politicians, scientists, doctors, other self-proclaimed experts to be on target with every decision is foolish; we are all human and subject to pressures, politics and pre-conceived notions as we move through the challenges of life. But we should be able to expect those who are in positions of power to act in a relatively rational manner. Remember the Governor who decreed that consumers could purchase certain products at a store but not others? Did she have insight that Covid was attracted to certain products or activities than others? What about another Governor who distained the emergency services provided by the Federal government because he did not want to give credit to a President he disliked? How does that square with the deaths of thousands due to his decision? The list goes on and on, especially of politicians who made medical and policy decisions for which they had little if any training.

Perhaps the single individual who did more to destroy that iconic image more than anyone was Dr. Anthony Fauci. As the pandemic went on, he spoke increasingly Ex-Cathedra finally stating that “If you attack me, you attack science.”  The problem was that his version of “science” had little in common with traditional science. Clink the link below for a review of the five mistakes Dr. Fauci made which brought about terrible results. What makes those errors even worse, is that even today, he holds some of the same views despite the proven costliness of those policies. As time goes on, those who were pushed out of the decision-making process because they dared to disagree with him and his policies are being seen in a new light, for they represented “science” as we traditionally think of it as a realm of questioning as opposed to an area of dogma.

Perhaps, just perhaps, more Americans will be a bit more skeptical next time and so easily bullied into giving up so much freedom to self-proclaimed “experts.”

https://nypost.com/2022/07/23/dr-anthony-faucis-5-disastrous-covid-mistakes/

Since the outbreak of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Western leaders have followed a strategy of providing the Ukrainians enough weapons and support to hold the Russians at bay but not enough to defeat the invaders. The reason is that the West is concerned with what Putin might do if backed into a situation where he is facing defeat; would he go nuclear or unleash some biological weapon? If he did, would such a response be limited to the area of the Ukraine or would he in a fit of anger, target NATO members? While Putin may appear to be unstable or not have a grasp of reality to some, he has been highly successful in keeping the Western nations at bay while increasing his influence with other nations who are not in the immediate area. All the while, the people of the Ukraine bleed to death while attempting to keep the Russian forces at bay, while hoping for a change in Russian leadership. A strategy of attrition by the West using someone else’s blood.

When Japan decided to go to war with the United States in 1941, it went with the realization that it could not win in a war of attrition. The average Japanese soldier (marine, aviator, etc.) had about four pounds of logistical support behind him (weapons, fuel, munitions, food, shipping, etc.) while the same fighter for the U.S. had over four thousand pounds. Admiral Yamamoto was correct when he said that Japan had awoken a sleeping giant.

The results of this disparity were shown early in the war, when after suffering a naval setback, Japan left over 150,000 troops stranded in New Guinea with the advice to live off the land. Unfortunately, New Guinea was not Western Europe or the Ukraine; instead, it is a hard land with little farmable land, but many high mountains, extreme heat, and humidity, covered in thick jungle with few roads. The result was that only about 10,000 Japanese military personnel survived the campaign. The stranded troops were left, as were so many other Japanese on dozens of isolated islands, to fend for themselves. The result was widespread examples of cannibalism.

James Badley in his book, Fly Boys, details the lives, capture and execution of several American flyers who were shot down over the island of Chichi Jima, a small island some 240 km. north of Iwo Jima. The aviators were all executed by the Japanese either by beheading or bayoneting and sections of their bodies were cut off and served, knowingly to Japanese officers in keeping with a belief that such action would strengthen the fighting spirits of the diners. For several decades after the war, the exact details of those actions were kept secret even though several of the Japanese officers were tried and either executed or imprisoned for their actions. The author, spend years and conducted many interviews with survivors, including Japanese veterans and surviving relatives of the executed Americans to build out the story.

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 Thucydides’s Trap is when a rising poser threatens to displace an existing one.  This phenomenon began during the Peloponnesian War which lasted for decades and lead to the victory of a weakened Sparta over the devastated Athens.

Since that time, there have been sixteen cases of the same type since then and in twelve cases the result has been war. Some of the cases are easy to recognize, such as Japan vs. the U.S. in the Pacific, or the rise of Germany vs. the U.K. after 1900, while others are more distant such as the Dutch Republic vs. Great Britain during the mid- to late 17^th century.  The three most recent cases when no war was the result was between the U.K./France vs. Germany for political influence in Europe, the Cold War and surprisingly, the rise of the U.S. and the perceived threat to the U.K. during the early 20^th Century.

The first third of the book is a devastating review of the rise of modern China; it’s huge growth in GDP, the strength of its economy, the expansion of its military, etc. as compared to the sluggish performance of the U.S.  Despite the “pivot” in American foreign policy under President Obama, little of concrete value has been achieved; the North Koreans have more arms, the Chinese have claim more of the sea and built numerous “island” which contrary to their promise, they have militarized, and our “allies” have been forced to bend to Chinese demands through the use of their great economic power in the region. 

Over the past fifty years, the Federal Department of Education has received trillions of dollars which is then given back to the States with numerous strings. When it was first formed, the budget for the department was about ten billion dollars, but in the latest budget it has increased to over one-hundred, eighty-five billion ($185,629,999,000). What have we received for those funds except to expand the number of Federal government bureaucrats who have a job for life?

Is there a better way to educate children? Is there a less expensive way which can give us at a minimum, the same results and hopefully, better educated young people. We know that in city after city the test scores in reading and math are abysmal. Yet, year after year we increase local budgets for schools as we are told by “educators” that the problem is a lack of funding. To add insult to injury, we are requested to (in some states which allow voter participation) for new bond issues which add billions in debt with no accountability.

The Russians had to destroy Mariupol to liberate it and bring it back to Mother Russia. That is the logic of Putin’s war which may sound strange to the Western way of thinking, but it is in keeping with centuries of Russian thought.

Mariupol has a long and at times, difficult history. From nomads to Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde, through the Ottoman empire and into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Mariupol managed to survive the Russian Revolution and terrible civil war and even the Nazi occupation, but it faces its greatest test as the “liberating” Russian army is now in control of a ghost town.

The link to an article by Norman Davies, the preeminent historian on Easter Europe will help to put the entire war in proper context. Once you understand the Russian context, you will understand there are no limits to this war, and indeed, it is only for starters.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-founding-conquering-and-destruction-of-mariupol-

Ever since the unification of Germany in 1870, Germany has stood out as an economic powerhouse. Just prior to World War I, it had surpassed the United Kingdom in several key manufacturing areas and was ready to challenge the United States. By 1914, Germany was producing nearly 50% of the electrical equipment in the world. After the destruction of World War II, the United States realized that the stability of Europe depended not on the victors (the U.K. and France) but on the defeated, Germany. Picking up the pieces, Germany once again stepped up and became the strong core of Europe.

The ability of Germany to take such a dominate role in Europe was based on several factors, including a highly educated, disciplines and homogeneous population, excellent technology, cheap energy, and the luxury of living under the protective umbrella of the United States. When Europe had problems, such as the economic disaster of 2007-8, Germany took a strong lead in insuring stability and continuity in the banking industry. It was Germany, not any of the other Western European states which provided the base for the European type of welfare state. Unfortunately, as history shows, Germany can make many bad decisions for every good one.

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