When reading any history book that covers the rise of Nazi Germany it is often too tempting to find parallels with what happened in Germany with what is happening in the world today.  During the first Gulf War historians, journalist, and pundits all compared Hussain’s march into Kuwait to that of Hitler’s mark into the Rheinland and later Poland.  After 9/11 the Left in American and Europe considered the Bush administration and many of its actions to those of a neo-fascist movement and lots of comparisons to Nazi’s and Hitler were the norm.  And recently Trump and his wink, wink, nod, nod, to far right groups and his complete vomit-like handling of the Charlottesville incident have reassured many that we have a neo-fascist/Nazi sympathetic administration.  But history and the present are both a lot more complicated than simple brush strokes of comparisons and contrasting.

Ian Kershaw’s first volume (of two), Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, is the best book Ive read on the subject of Hitler and the Nazi party’s rise to power in the Weimar Germany.  While the first third of the book is focused on what is known about the despotic leader and his early life.  The rest of the book does a great job at weaving the personal side with his rise in the party and then as a politician.  What is most revealing about this take of history is all the side issues taking place in Germany, specifically the role the Communist, other  right wing groups, elected powers, and outside forces played in paving the way to Nazi rule.

Anyone sensitive to politics will see our times repeating Germany’s error from 90 years ago.  But this is the trap that gets us to repeat the same mistakes.  Its been said that history does not repeat itself, but that it does rhyme (this quote has been attributed to too many people to know who actually said it).  I agree with this observation.  I don’t think Trump even comes close to being a Hitler.  Trump has no convictions, while Hitler was all convictions.  Trump is a caricature of American society, while Hitler was a manifestation of a portion of German society that was at a boiling point…there were at least half dozen other men like him, spewing his hate, at that time.  (Traveling back in time and killing Hitler would only make way for another despot in waiting).  So if we are not repeating history, what is it that is rhyming?

The collapse of the Weimar Republic was made complete because the Nazis, along with the the Communist, managed to discredit the institutions of government.  Kershaw’s account is invaluable in making this case.  And the rhyming with our times comes by way of the complete and utter discreditation our institutions are having at the hands of this Administration.  But before we get too giddy about how Trump has been systematically destroying our countries institutions, lets remember there has been a regular discreditation of our institutions from administration to administration.  I will list a few examples:

• FBI:  From the siege at Waco in the 90’s to the harassment of Richard Jewel.
• CIA: the complete debacle of the weapons of mass destruction chapter.
• The 2008 financial crisis where no one served a single day in jail for destroying the American economy – no, they got their bonuses thanks the Tim Geithner — paid for by the US tax payer.
• The rollout of Obama care where after millions of dollars spent nothing worked.

To many of his supporters Trump was, in many ways, a response to the above, and many other moments of discreditation.  But while we have had many of these moments  throughout our history sitting presidents (and those coming after) have made an effort to correct matters because they understand the importance of the American people having confidence in their government and its institutions.  And this is where Trump fails miserably.

In Kershaw’s account the Nazi’s were working to discredit the institutions as part of their strategy to gain power.  Trump’s approach lacks any strategy, he’s simply incompetent.  As a result, he is not the one we need to fear.  The person we will need to fear is not on center stage yet — the setting is being prepared for him/her.  Much the way the setting for Hitler and his men was set by the incompetencies of the people that came before him.

Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris is a well thought and composed narrative of history that avoids the usual, simple minded, cliche’s of “Hitler was a jew,” or “Hitler was gay,” or “it was the treaty of versailles that led to Hitler.”  Instead, Kershaw outlines and explains all the forces at play that in some ways through chance, incompetence, or on purpose, created the perfect setting for one of the most disgusting periods in human history to come to life.

“It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don’t care.” Pablo Picasso on the moon landing of July 1969.

“Mars has been flown by, orbited, smacked into, radar examined, and rocketed onto, as well as bounced upon, rolled over, shoveled, drilled into, baked and even blasted. Still to come: Mars being stepped on.” Buzz Aldrin Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration (2013)

This Futurism article discusses a BBC documentary where Apollo 8 Astronaut Bill Anders says that its stupid for NASA to send a crewed mission to Mars. He goes on to say:

“What’s the imperative? What’s pushing us to go to Mars? I don’t think the public is that interested,”

I would agree that there is no imperative to do so and that if polled the majority of American’s would say, that is not a good use of taxpayer money. It begs to question then, using his logic – Anders – why did we go to the moon in the first place? Would he say that his and the several other trips to the moon were a waste of time and money? Additionally, there are a lot of things the public, if polled, would consider a waste of time and taxpayer money. I’m certain the internet and its predecessor would have been viewed as such by a considerable number of the US population back in the 70s and 80s.

I have always been a proponent of commercial initiatives for space exploration exactly because of arguments like Anders. Musk and Bezos SpaceX and Blue Origin’s respectively are programs that have taken such steps. What I cant understand is the hostility towards private enterprise and their objectives for space exploration. If the issue with public funding of space exploration is that its a waste of time and money to pursue Mars or asteroid mining, isn’t the private sector the perfect answer? Yet even in this BBC interview Anders expresses hostility towards the two companies plans for Mars exploration and colonization.

If private sector organizations develop a business model that allows them to support their initiatives they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their technological developments and exploration. They take the risk, they should reap the rewards. Why then hostility towards organizations pursuing, with their money, such goals? Even astronaut Frank Borman, a crew-mate of Anders Apollo 8 mission, who supports manned missions to explore the solar system has hostile words towards Space X and Blue Origins:

“I do think there’s a lot of hype about Mars that is nonsense…Musk and Bezos, they’re talking about putting colonies on Mars. That’s nonsense.”

If Musk and Bezos were talking about taxpayer dollars Borman’s argument would be valid. But if its their money, their technology, and their goals, why the hostility?

Time and again experts have failed to capture the potential of ideas because, well, they are experts. The narrow scope of their understanding and thinking inevitably generates blindsides. Thomas Watson, president of IBM in 1943 said, “I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers.” Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said in 1977, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”

Perhaps manned Mars missions are a fools errand and colonies on the red planet an utter fantasy. But the limited foresight of the masses and their experts should not get in the way of those who can finance and chase such dreams. To paraphrase the Buddhist proverb, the effort is the reward.

The wind fears the rocks

Rock eroded by water

Water fears the sun

A lot has been noted about the ever growing inequality between the super-rich and the poor.  The most comprehensive piece written in recent history that quantified this phenomenon was Capital In The Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.  I recommend you read this piece regardless of your political convictions.

For years after reading Piketty I was left puzzled by the implications of his piece, Capital.  But his solutions seemed more of the same; tax, tax, tax.  There was no real substance behind said solutions nor was there any historical data in his work that would support his solution as the leveler for inequality.  In comes Walter Scheidel with his work, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century.

In many ways The Great Leveler is a response to Piketty’s Capital in that it acknowledges the real problem with inequality but in contextualizes the problem.  Scheidel makes a compelling argument that inequality has always been with us and that there are only four forces that level inequality effectively:

Mass Mobilization Warfare

Transformative Revolution

State Failure

Lethal Pandemics

He refers to this forces as the Four Horsemen – Scheidel goes on to say:

Just like their biblical counterparts, they went forth to “take peace from the earth” and “kill with the swords, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beast of the earth.” Sometimes acting individually and sometimes in concert with one another, they produced outcomes that to contemporaries often seemed nothing short of apocalyptic. Hundreds of millions perished in their wake. And by the time the dust had settled, the gap between the haves and have-nots had shrunk, sometimes dramatically.

As with Capital, I highly recommend The Great Leveler, but you must read Capital first.

In an age where cries for a great leveling and redistribution of wealth is called for by the masses, it would be prudent to understand how such leveling has effectively happened in the past and what consequences it brought with it.