Anti-Authoritarianism and Politics

Anti-authoritarianism is fundamental to individuals and to the species.  Developmentally the first major conflict zone between the authorities and self is the parent child struggle named the Terrible Twos.  Developmentally at the age of roughly 2 to 3 a child exerts his individuality with contrarian distinction to the will of the parents.  Historically this was symbolized by the refusal to potty train or the 'no' and the 'temper tantrums.

Developmentally it is also a feature of the early teen years when children are moving from identification with their family to that of their peer group.

An old and simple truism is that the greatest leaders are the greatest followers.  There is great pride and narcissism in our culture with Frank Sinatra's song, "I did it my way" celebrating individual industry and endeavour. However there's a tremendous likelihood form most that this means a horrendous waste of time.  The NASA program doesn't encourage people to avoid the experience of learning from previous astronauts and just try jumping up in the air. Reinventing the wheel is avant garde but frivilous of resources.

Most creativity is done by those who have already accomplished the skills of those who have gone before them. Hence 'we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before" is a truism.

There are 'exceptions that prove the rule' but the facts remain, in todays society there is a direct correlation between years of education and probability of success individually and in community.  It is true that there are PHD's driving taxis and Grade 6 drop outs who have become dot come millionaires. However the ratio is that more than 90% of PHD's are making more than $50,000 a year income while 90% of Grade 6 , perhaps even Gr 11 , drop outs are making less than $50,000.

Inflation in education is that today a Bachelor Degree or Journeyman papers are the same standard as the old Gr. 12 educations.  There's ratios.  The more complex the activity the more likely the need for advanced training.  No one wants a jetfighter pilot 'winging it'.

The difficulty with drug abuse and alcoholism is that they interfere with learning.  They also are strongly associated with anti-authoritarianism. Commonly those in 12 step programs who are supposed to do a Step 4 overlook addressing fears and resentments which they have to institutions and principles. Authority is perhaps best understood as a principle.  The major authority structures in society are government, education, religion, police, military, banks.

We have just had an election in Canada in which three outstanding individuals who all had great leadership skills competed.  Individually most Canadians were well spread in their appreciation for any of them and an anti authority joke that made the rounds was that 'choosing a politician is like choosing which STD one wants."  However, Mr. Harper  had been Canada's leader for 2 terms demonstrating his outstanding democratic leadership skills when winning ever one election is extremely difficulty.  Mr. Mulcair was leader of the NDP Opposition party and while he didn't win the election was a greatly admired leader of the Opposition and NDP>  Justin Trudeau, the present prime minister did exceptionally well as leader of the Liberal Party bringing this third place party to win the election.  His leadership skills on this alone are to be admired.

The fact is that all the Canadian leaders are A students when it comes to political. If there were an exam for "Political Intelligence" , Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau would all score A.  To date Mr. Harper has been A+ as a democratic leader serving two terms and having 8 years of leadership experience under his belt.  Mr. Trudeau has survived many months now and continues to lead his liberal party and the government of Canada while having only 40% of the popular vote. Mr. Mulcair has many years of experience and is facing another leadership conference. But the fact all these leaders are exceptional leaders.

Right now the American election is in the beginning delegates phase with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders all leading in the races.  Again , all of these individuals are exceptional leaders. They have demonstrated great success individually in their own personal and public life and now are demonstrating their impressive leadership skills in these really tough campaigns and debates and the rather ugly spectacle of rough and tumble American politics.  Given American Transparency and Journalism every wrinkle and slip of the tongue is enlarged and distributed the world over whereas in the rest of the world where so many police states and so much of politics is behind closed doors no such public demonstration exists.

Elections in western countries are rather like blood sports and the public has a front row seat. That
truly is the issue of democracy whereas in communist totatitarian countries and other dictatorships the public doesn't know and there is no allowance for criticism and dissent.  America quite possibly
can be called the country with the greatest level of free speech in the world. Without 'free speech'





  
there is no freedom and political correctness is today the greatest threat to 'freedom of speech' and

'freedom' and "democracy" since Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

In a democracy with freedom of speech everyone has the 'right' to criticize the government and the authority institutions.  In Muslim lead countries we have seen that criticizing, questioning or repudiating Allah and Islam is a punishable offence with actual death as a consequence. Charlie was killed in another country by Islamic terrorists but the actions of those terrorist were supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and by Pew Statistics a majority of mainstream Muslims. In Thailand there is a professor in prison for criticizing the historical behaviour of an ancestral King. To criticize the Royal Family today is to risk incarceration.  To criticize the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia is to risk death as death was the lot of so many Argentinians who criticized their government in the terrible years.

Freedom is still a quite rare entity. So many of the leaders of the United Nations countries are guilty of major human rights offences and are quite frankly anti freedom for their citizens and often only pay lip service to the very idea of democracy.  Much of the world is ruled by old style tribalism, akin to gangsterism.  Power whether taken by gun or inheritted by those whose parents and grandparents took power by violence is in many ways the norm for much of the United Nations leadership despite their fatuous rhetoric.  The United Nations Authority has given rise to the black humor joke, "How do you know when a politician is lying. His lips are moving."

However, every leader in the United Nations is an A student in "Political Intelligence" and political leadership.

I'm personally not a very good leader. At most I've been in charge of a unit of 10 to 20 staff. I've been the acting head of units of a few more people but not that many. Mostly my businesses have at most had 2 or three assistants. I've not managed a marriage well. lasting 10 years in that endeavour and haven't had children. By contrast my brother, an highly accomplished administrator has wifh his wife of 30 plus years managed a family of 5, in addition to managing many many people in the work place and handling million dollar budgets.  Note that these are the true basis for judging leadship skills. Critics today are a dime a dozen and usually unskilled in and fundamentally ignorant. They are
however a 'legend in their own minds!"


I can only admire Canada's Prime Ministers and Political Party leaders for their "Political Intelligence'.  My brother's "political intelligence" is greater than mine. Obvioulsy Mr. Trudeau is
very bright politically to be the leader of a nation just like those who are leaders of the United
Nations.



It also means to my mind that they were all likely less 'anti authoritarian' than I am.  A communist leader might have got into his position of socialist leadership by killing a few competitors just like a leader of the Hell's Angels or Jacuzza or Mafia.  Justin Trudeau, Harper, Obama, etc. all got to their positions of leadershi by playing the 'game' without overt illegal behaviour.

The trouble with 'criminal' leaders is that they may in fact have political intelligence but they're a bit like people who bring guns to golf games. Criminals may win the golf game in their mind by killing the Tiger Woods. That doesn't make themgood golfers. They're losers except as killers.

Authority is power.  The democractic leaders as compared to the totalitarian leaders and the criminal leaders don't solely depend on fear and force. In a great movie excerpt from the classic Grand Canyon, the stupid thug Rocstar has a gun on the old man Simon who is discussing respect with him. Rockstar "are you asking me as a sign of respect or are you asking because I've got the gun' and Simon says "You aint got the gun, we aint having this conversation." Then Rockstar says, profoundly, "That's what I thought: no gun, no respect. That's why I've always got the gun."

So authority comes with fear or love.  Totalitarian regimes and gangter oligarchies and communist Committee run countries  are lead by fear.

In a democracy, the fact is 40% of Canadians voted for Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau individually didn't force them to vote for him. He didn't threaten them (except perhaps with the fear mongering Climate Change Cult, vote for me I'll save the world, vote against me and we all die because the planet is going to die) but really, he put forward his 'best sales job' and beat the other two guys who were doing their best to get votes and the majority went to Mr. Trudeau. The same happened for Obama.



In contrast many elections around the world, especially the phony communist elections and the fake democracies, if you don't vote for the dictator you're killed. He rules by the gun.

Now our government may well have the 'illusion' of democracy with the Elite, that 2% of every country that really rules, doing whatever they want to while giving us the illusion of choice.  In the
real politick of communism and socialist countries and other dictatorships the appointed people
simply take charge and tell you what to do.  There's no 'illusion of choice'.


That's fairly cynical and yes, all those who are cynical will naturally be 'anti authoritarianism."  Nihilism and cynicism are by nature 'anti authoritarian'.  The "loser' in the struggle of 'claw and tooth' in the wild will naturally be negative about their not getting the bone. Watching hyenas and lions is a study in such behaviour.  The multiplicity of carion beasts and the hierarchies of any society are complex.

But it remains that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Obama today are A students in 'Politics'.  Just like Stalin and Hitler, and Henry the VIII and the Ottoman Sultan and Lincoln and Gandhi before them.  These men were all great leaders.

However, as the Golden Bough showed societies like to have leaders as 'scapegoat'.  Collectively the Germans who supported Hitler overnight denied association when the Nazi regime fell.  The same occured in the Bible with even Peter denying his association and following of Jesus, one of the greatest leaders of history.

Jesus was a great Authority, like Mohammed, like Moses, like Buddha, like other religious leaders. Personally I feel Jesus is the son of God but objectively all the religious leaders were A students politically and socially.

So when I criticize Trudeau who I personally do not like, his politics being as opposite my own as say the Montreal Canadienes Hockey team is from the greatest of all hockey teams, the Canucks.

In a democracy, with freedom of speech and political debate we can criticize our government openly
without wanting a revolution.  I love the Beatles song, "We don't want a revolution!"   I can understand why Americans want Hillary Clinton jailed and I can even understand why as many want Obama impeached as did Bush.  I would be ecstactic is Trudeau were step down from leadership of Canada and let someone more to my liking  win. I'd like the Canucks to win the NHL too.


I am interested in this issue of authority and anti authority though because a lot of people who have never even 'lead' anything or anyone speak as if they could do better than Justin Trudeau.  And it saddens me. I don't like Trudeau or even Obama but I really don't think with my experience and record I could do a better job than they are doing.

I'm a ship's captain and a rather adequate one.  I noted that when my ship was in a storm all the crew less experienced and capable than me wanted to be in charge.  I learned then that people who are afraid and unaware of their fearfulness, want to be in 'control'.  So often I have seen those out of control in my psychiatric practice want to 'take control' because this gave them the brief illusion of 'safety'.

I actually believe that our generation dominated by drugs and alcohol , television, movies and video games has an immense egotism and arrogance about their capabilities. I've seen so many picturres of rank beginners jumping on motorcycles and driving them first time. I've play video games. And yet, when I first drove a motorcycle it wasn't long before I crashed it. Even after advanced training and much experience I find riding my motorcycle a very advanced complex skill.  I've done these 'pilot simulation' series and I've been quite good. I've even sat beside dozens of pilots and had some basic training in flying. Still despite all the movies to the contrary I don't want to ever have to pilot or land a 747 or a jet fighter.

A professional is judged by his lowest level. The professional is one who does a whole lot of something and because of experience has quite outstanding successes but mostly can attest to a minimum standard of success.  There is no perfection in this human world despite the demands of authorities.    However a military sniper will hit the target with high probability most of the time.  They can have a bad day. By contrast an amateur can 'get lucky' and hit the target once.  Having delivered a hundred babies or so I see the great tv deliveries by the children, police, neighbour or whatever and think that's great.  90% of the time I really didnt' think I needed to be at the delivery. However there's at least a half dozen or more of the deliveries I attended that mother and child would
have died if I hadn't been there and I had n't had the greatest of teachers.

Because again, the greatest leaders are the greatest followers.  Just as I followed the instructions of
Rusty who taught me motorcycle riding, I had followed the instructions of the obstetricians and psychiatrists and other teachers who I was truly blessed to have as mentors. I also followed my father
and mothers instruction, perhaps not as well as I could have and certainly in retrospect should have, but I did follow them. I am indeed an extremely good follower.

But so is Mr. Trudeau.  He's been a great follower and learned from some of Canada's greatest leaders.  His father, Pierre Trudeau is just one. Both Mr. Paul Martin and Mr. Chretien supported and guided Mr. Justin Trudeau. Sadly even the Conservative weak link Mr. Joe Clark supported him.  He is clearly a great follower with great mentors and despite all predictions he has not totally bankrupt the country in the first 6 months of his leadership.  Obama might well be the devil incarnate but similiar America survived his rule just as it survived Mr. Bush.  Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush were as demonized as Mr. Harper in Canada was.

But the fact remains at this time they all are as great leaders as Mr. Putin or Mrs Thatcher.

Anti authoritarianism contains the inability to appreciate 'authority' in general and comes out specifically in a lot of situations.  Those who do drugs and alcohol are commonly anti law and order because it interferes with their addictions. Criminals are naturally 'anti authority' preferring to be 'a law unto themselves.'

Che guevara was as great a military leader as Ghengis Khan by some arguments but he wasn't as great a political leader as Khan or as his buddy Castro.  A great military leader or even a military hero might well not have the skills or political acumen to be the kind of leader that Truman or Kennedy were.

Political leadership is of a 'kind'.  It's a kind of 'authority'.  One feature is whether it's legitimate, criminal , or democratic.  Is is a product of force or attraction.  Is it 'respect' or is it a 'gun".

Now followers are fickle.  Mr. Harper, one of the greatest leaders of Canadian history, elected two terms and managed Canada through two world economic crisis is rejected overnight by the electorate one the basis of 'change'.  Anything is better than the old ways. Mr. Obama was elected much the same way after.  In democracies we don't as much vote for a person as against the last person. Even Winston Church lost his election despite what he'd done in WWII.  In democracy when a country is doing well the leaders may actually stay in power but the minute events change out they go.


It's been said that Benign Dictatorships are the best government overall for a country or a world however it's also said 'Power corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely".  History shows too that regimes corrupt and eventually competition replaces them with empire after empire till the present world empire today.

Now the whole idea of 'freedom of speech', involves 'criticism' and therefore I can criticism authorities and thankfully in Canada the retaliation is not what it is in Saudi Arabia where the regime is so weak it cannot tolerate any dissension.  It's a government by force compared to Canada and even the US where the government is by attraction.

What's interesting in politics is not just the left and right dimensions but when the quality of criticism is by leaders themselves.  Not outsiders, but rather those leaders who have been before or themselves had the job of running large complex social structures.

The joke of the Alberta NDP election was that never before in the history of Canada or perhaps even the west have so many utterly ignorant and incompetent people gained so much power democratically. The vast majority of elected in that province had far less leadership experience than me and I've run a business, been an expedition leader, had masses of education and am a ships captain. The majority of candidates there had no leadership experience to speak of and had never managed budgets greater than a hundred thousand or so.  Yet despite the bankruptcy of the province they're muddling along showing that politics can 'survive' with all kinds. When there is a revolution such as the Lenin communist revolution that deposed the Russian government lead by socialist Alexander Kerensky after the abdication of NicholasII there is a similiar situation with generally politically ignorant, naive and incompetent people taking their leadership by force and establishing control with a gun.

The loss then is monumental. But it's interesting that a multi billion dollar business like the country of Alberta can be taken over by critics and school teachers and it muddles along.  Indeed experience is mostly associated with efficiency and without corruption, saving.

Now I'm looking forward to the leadership races in Canada. Rona Ambrose has been an amazing conservative interim leader and Mulcair is up for review by the NDP.  Meanwhile Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton look like they will be the contenders for the next American presidency.  I personally like Country Rock or Country Folk Music but I like to think of these leaders as different types of music,  Obama was probably Rap while Hillary might be called jazz and Trump rock and roll.  I think of Justin Trudeau as hip hop myself and thought Mr. Harper classic rock.  Trump might be Metallica but the bottom line and that's what I want heard here is despite my fear and criticism of Trudeau and Obama I fully recognise them as A plus students of politics. As a Canadian I will follow Trudeau's leadership as well, kicking and screaming as I go. I'm paying his outrageous taxes and choking on his wasteful spending just like Americans who felt that neither the establishment Democrats or Republicans served them so look to the genius of Donald Trump, definitely a major leader.

But this analysis is like respect that which fighter pilots had for each other in WWI.  Downed pilots were treated respectfully and returned exchanged in prisoner exchanges in a civilized way before the rule of mob violence.

ISIS today definitely is lead by an A plus leader but his leadership is coupled with barbarian behaviour.

I guess it's summed up by recognizing that Lucifer was a great angel and remains a great angel but thankful he doesn't play for the Canucks. Personally I think the Angel Michael and even on good days that Jesus plays for the Canucks.  (Jesus was not playing for the Canucks this last season).

Lenin Memorial Centre, Ulyanovsk, Russia

This was a remarkable centre. A celebration of a man so important to the Russian People. I couldn’t help but think of the Lincoln Memorial and consider Lincoln and the civil war of the day.  Rebels today consider him and the win in America anathema.  Lenin is that controversial.  Major forces of history and men at the helm.  Great swaths of legalism and political ease.  Thousands dead on an idea or a word. Yet those who survive were part of an awesome time.  In the west we have a shallowness with emotionalism, soccer games and the screaming fans of some child rock star.  These days of Russia were life and death. As if California wanted to secede from the US and Texans decided en mass to stop them. All the absurdity and insanity of politics, people and wars comes to the fore.
I judge as history judges a million miles away. Lenin was a great man.  To the Russians he is what Churchill is to the British, Washington is to the Americans.  John A. MacDonald with all his corruption and foibles is as close as I can come with a comparison in Canada. Certainly he is in a way like Wallace to the Scots but in contrast to Wallace, Lenin succeeded in creating a new empire. He was a builder.  He brought a vast region under central control, created a modern state from what was essentially a medieval kingdom.
There is modern history in this museum too. I enjoyed the wall given to each of the Russia leaders since Lenin. I confess I enjoyed those bits where English was added and I could understand better what I was seeing. Definitely an audiotape tour would be more rewarding. Barrett answered my questions but was delightfully waylaid by two Russian ladies who waxed poetic she said about the Soviet era.  I loved the celebration of the Soviet Space exploration.

Ulyanovsk, Russia

Ulyanovsk is the birthplace of Lenin.(1870 to 1920)  Lenin was the adopted ’nom de guerre’ of Vladimir Ulvanov, a pen name he used when writing political pamphlets.  Ulyanovsk was called Simbirsk until it was named Ulyanosk for Lenin in 1924.  Lenin’s original name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. He was the son of wealth parents, his mother the daughter of Jewish physician, his father a teacher of physics and math. He was raised Christian. His father died when he was 16 and his older brother Aleksander (Sasha) was executed for involvement in an attempt to bomb the Tsar.  Lenin studied law at Kazan University. He worked as a lawyer. He lead the Bolshevik faction against the Mensheviks. He was living in exile but returned to Russia when the February Revolution of 1917 ousted the Tsar.  He played a senior role in ousting the provisional government in the October Revolution of 1917.  He became leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and disbanded the Russian Empire to create the Soviet Union, a one party socialist state.  Industry and business was nationalized. Wide spread social reforms followed.  He made a pact with Germany giving away  a significant portion of Russia. Germany had assisted Lenin’s return to Russia to help destabilize its WWI enemy. The treaty was voided after the Allies won the war.
Lenin did not believe that party members should express themselves independently. He believed in the need for strong leadership and complete control. He broke with Julius Martov over this issue. He supported bank robberies and violence. He called Paris a ‘foul hole’. Lenin called Stalin the ‘wonderful Georgian’.  In 1917 the Cheka (Secret Service)  was created by a decree by Lenin.  At Stalin’s proposed  There were two assassination attempts on Lenin. Lenin commenced the Red Terror in 1917. He signed lists for execution. He ordered the execution of the Royal Family. This was confirmed by Trotsky in his Exile Diaries..  Lenin said a ‘good communist is a good Chekist’ and expanded their discretionary death penalty powers. Lenin decreed the execution of the priests and expropriation of their property. Estimates of deaths of the Red Terror range to a million.  He died in 1923 of three strokes possibly a consequence of syphilis.
Lenin was an atheist and believed socialism was inherently atheistic. He was married to Nadezhda Krupskaya a fellow Marxist but they never had children. She was a subordinate wife.
This is taken from Wikipedia which I usually find very ‘left leaning’.  It’s overall rather demeaning for a man who was obviously a great leader.  Journalists, being great talkers, are more likely to ‘chop the heads off others to make themselves taller’ . Given that Lenin was such a contemptuous journalists it’s possibly the writers are having their way of getting their own back.  Lenin as a journalist founded papers and used them to savage his detractors.  (Much later in history Deconstructionists were briefly successful at ridiculing other philosophers but the founders had a regular hissy fit when their very ‘deconstructionism’ was applied to themselves.  Boys and girls destroy, men and women create.) Depending on who tells the story of Lenin there's a different picture.
A further likely explanation for the change from eulogization of Lenin to increasing criticism of him is that, as this vast Communist Empire is dissolving, to some degree,  there is a tendency to bite the hand that feeds.  It was a ruthless movement that quickly turned on anyone who wasn’t a winner by any means.  There’s an American flavour there where the American population has demonstrated repeatedly that it’s more inclined to have a leader who ‘wins’ than one who ‘loses’ even if the winners  they ‘break the rules’.  A recent example is George Bush's 'weapons of mass destruction controversy'. Robert Graves addressed this human tendency in the Golden Bough.  The taboo of cannibalism is kept in check until the leader falls then the stupid masses eat him.
Lenin was obviously more sociopathic than his arch enemy Alexander. He and his regime were more murderous than the one they replaced. That’s if we don’t look back to the beginning of the Russian Empire.  In it’s early days, as in the early days of any empire, (including the Soviet) there’s war and mass slaughter of ones enemies.  Once a new leadership is established less killing in demanded.  (Stalin is an exception but matters might have been different were it not for the Nazi invasion)
The latter years of the Communist Empire there saw less killing.  The American Empire opened with its killing and  expulsion of the Loyalist and not many years later it's Civil War. Today it merely Gulags those who disagree.  It may be all Empires mellow and this may or may not be why they fall.
Economic inefficiency appears to be the cause of the fall of the Communist Empire.  However my own tendency, as a scientist, is to say that ‘technologically’ especially weaponry develop which favour the little guy over the big guy.  The chariot lead empire fell to the masses carrying spikes and shields.  Machine guns and tanks certainly were Germany’s advantage. The British was it's Navy.  America right now is its rule of  the skies and space.
Regardless Lenin was a great leader.  Compared to Alexander the Great or Caesar he like Stalin held their own.  Barbarian certainly.  I find he parallels Lincoln somewhat. Who knows what crackdown Lincoln would have had if he'd survived his assassination attempt.  He could be likened to Moses to for he lead his people out of the desert and his attacks his own and others was certainly not dissimilar.   Certainly I prefer Christians to atheists and raised in Canada supported Adams over Marxism-Leninism.
In the Bible there were the men trying to build the wall and whenever they picked up their hammers their enemies attacked them so they had to split their forces with half being soldiers and the other half being builders.  By contrasts the ‘contrarians’ (the enemy) had only one aim and that was to ‘steal the wall’.  They could devote all their forces to destruction.
Once the Communist Empire was in place it was faced with this greater difficulty of holding power.
Violence begets violence. In Canada today, according to my now dead friend, Dugald Christie, the courts are only serving the rich.  Those in power then become an elite and increasingly since the ‘rules don’t apply to them’ and they act ‘above the law’ then the rest of the country feels less obliged to respect the law.  As Canada becomes a ‘2 law’ nation it faces what all nations face to maintain power.  Some figure the corruption in the Communist government lead to inferior production.
My Checkoslovakian friend who had fleed communism was nevertheless sorry to see it’s fall. He felt that America, when Russia was strong, had to be ‘good’ and now with ‘one world order’ there no longer was any need to be  ‘good’.  Rather there is a devolution into a chaos of infighting and tribalism. There is a new ‘anti white’ racism to replace the ‘anti black’ racism.  The secular state attacks the religious.  The Bible condemned in America while in Russia it's welcomed back. Perhaps Russia isn't behind in this regard?  Personally, as a Canadian I think we're right but that's got a lot to do with basic patriotism.  God save the Queen!
I think it must have been ‘heady’ days when Lenin and his friends were ‘reinventing’ the wheel and trying to make a ‘new world order’.  The psychiatrist in me can only see the terrible sadness and tragedy of the man who saw his older brother killed, his father die when he was 16, the loving worrying mother .Then  as an idealist himself he was wounded and nearly killed by assassination.  It was a confusing life.  There is much Doystoyevsky would have admired in the passionate man who had an ‘idea’ which lacked ‘heart’. But I’m a physician not a politician and I think in terms of individual lives not empires.
I’ve devoted my own life to not killing.  I’d love to whack the opposition and reign holy terror on those who disagree with me but instead I’ve built my own faith around non violence.  I can defend myself but I don’t feel right about attacking others especially to get what I want.  I can certainly identify with Lenin. He was first and foremost a man, Indeed being of nobility and the educated upper middle class I can say he was like me.  Theres a ‘scale’ difference when we consider the ‘greats’  but it’s only in ‘scale’.  Jesus said, "Pluck the log out of your own eye before you try to take the twig out of your neighbours'.  Again I'm thankful I'm Canadian but understand better now the patriotic fervour Russians have and how they admire Lenin as the Americans admire their Washington.
History will tell, but I don’t think his tomb will last long in Red Square.  Even the Vatican buries it’s Popes underground eventually.  The difficulty with leadership is it's always 'herding cats' and even Lenin couldn't get his last wish met, that is to be buried.
 I love the nearby Volga.  As a child I learned the Volga Boatman song and here I am today. Barrett’s long time friend Victor met us at the plane and took us to this lovely modern Barcelona Hotel.

Spousal Abuse-Domestic Violence - Against Men

One of the principle problems of any discussion of domestic violence or spousal abuse is the persisting belief that 'women' as a 'gender' are 'collectively' victims.  One may as well enter into a discussion about Middle East Peace with a Zionist Jew or Radical Palestinian.  This collective 'denial' of violence as 'species' violence perpetuates gender violence as much as any number of other factors.
Radical feminism began with social communism.  In communism there is a paranoid vision of the world derived from Marx.  He saw the world in terms of 'victims', the 'proletariat' and 'victimizers' the beourgeosie and his solution was a one class society.  However Lenin felt that this 'one class' society required 'dictatorship' of the proletariat hence the latter day Russian communist regime with the dachaus and special stores for the 'leadership'.  China is no different and all communist countries despite their successful revolutionary beginnings have turned into the feudal equivalents theywere against.  There is a middle in society and Scottish socialism showed clearly that there was a place for diversity and a middle class and that 'war', the only solution of communism, was unnecessary.
In gender politics the new beourgeosie were the Women's Studies Professors and the the writers of radical feminism all the way down to the lipstick feminists who sound very much like people without a banner.  Hence the movement in universities to expand from the revolutionary 'paranoid' position of 'us against them' to (finally) some work on the value of 'egalitarianism".  The irony is this latest group calls themselves 'egalitarian feminists"  which sounds like capitalist communists to those who pay attention to language.  But we do have our 'red tories' today and and our blue liberals as everyone fights for centre stage and the teen agers claim they don't wear a uniform.
While 'crime studies' show that men are more likely than women to use violence, other studies usually family and domestic violence studies  show that men are more likely to inflict injury but that when all acts of physical aggression or violence are considered women are either as aggressive as men or more violent than men.
These violence studies further do not take into account that while men may be sexually aggressive women are freer to and are more likely to act out their aggression against men by having sex with their partners friends, family members or bosses.  Further agression between females is often expressed sexually through sex with a a girl's  boyfriend.
Further female parents acting alone were the most common perpetrators of child abuse.
Added to this,1/3 of sexual abuse victims are likely to sexually abuse themselves.  Then too a significant portion of physically abused will go on to physically abuse.
In addition to this there is a major variable of the person who has had one aggressive relationship compared to the person who has recurrent aggressive relationships. In the latter there are predators and volunteers more than predators and victims.
When I have been willing to enter into a discussion of solutions to the problem of spousal abuse or domestic violence from this position of 'fact' and 'scientific information' I have been threatened , ostracized and attacked directly and indirectly.  I have never hit a woman but I have repeatedly physically violated by women publicly and privately.  I have further treated countless men probably an equal number to the women I have treated who have been violently attacked by women.
The researchers I have known who were men have been castigated for bringing forward this information yet until we move out of this backwater we will not be able to get on with addressing the inherrent species violence and the bullying of those in power whether female or male. Further the tendency of any revolution is to exchange one bully and their spouse for another bully and their spouse. Matriarchy has long be associated by anthrolopologists with war, slavery and torture.  That suggests that violence is not gender specific but rather 'species' specific.
Lesbians have the highest incidence of violence over homosexuals and both have greater violence than heterosexuals.
Note that alcohol and drugs are directly associated with violence as are poverty and most importantly men fight men and women fight women so focusing on 'blame' rather than 'solutions' is going nowhere.
2007 1/4 of relationships reported violence.

The New Administration Class

There is really nothing new about the "new administration class".  In the old days leadership and management simply went to the person with the biggest muscle and biggest club.  The survival of the tribe depended on the 'strong man' and his 'medicine woman' and having an "MBA" didn't add much to the equation. (I believe an MBA might well be highly beneficial but I don't know that an Administrator today would necessarily take advice from any such animal.)
 Subsequent to Agricultural Times the raising of armies occured.   This was the beginning of administration, per se.Jared Diamond in his seminal work Guns, Germs and Steel described the development of agriculture as a necessary means for raising armies because farmers could supply food for many making possible the societal specification resulting in a warrior class who could then enslave the farmers and all others in fact.
Who knows if this has changed?  Confuscian times in the east were equally important administrative times. But mostly Confuscians had to behave with good manners beaurocratically  In the Feudal world the King would grant land to his fellow warriors who would then extract work and taxes from the serfs.  If the warrior was a better killer than manager he would presumably hire someone to manage the lands
In those days brute strength, fighting prowess and loyalty to the leader resulted in administrative leadership.
Yet somehow in the 30's there was this idea that the best manager was someone who had come up throug the ranks or worked in the bottom of the factory. This persists with the English Monarchy sending their sons to the military for training through the ranks.  Administration is hierarchal and based in this warring world on military models despite all said against.
The result of administration is maximizing profit or tax for the crown's benefit, and keeping problems from going to the top so that the leadership if not the head administrator can be freed from dealing with lesser trivial matters which can be solved by lower ranks.
Alot of corporations and historically the sons of business leaders wanted their children, like Prince William today to be a member of the ranks to learn the 'trade'.
In Canada leadership required a person to have skills in the area of which they were minister, hence the minister of agriculture was usually a farmer, the minister of health was a doctor, the minister of mines, an engineer.
It seems that went out. I'm not sure it ever was "in".  The rich man has always been able to have his 'idiot' son in a position of authority.  Often the rich man acquired wealth only to have the family squander it.
In Canada, Allan Rock was the lawyer I remember being made Minister of Health. I don't know he was the first non medical person to be in that position.  It's just that having met him I thought, now why is it the Attorney General is a lawyer when clearly a farmer or a doctor could 'judge' just as well. Leadership in scientific fields was clearly the most benefitted from by knowledge of science but the ruling classes had returned to feudalism and a rotating portofolio. Why is it too that increasingly lawyers have been Prime Ministers and had positions of power. One reason might be that some lawyers see themselves as the new non violent military using their wits to win where generals used their brawn. Generals have, by the way, always thought it was their 'wits' that won wars for at least thousands of years.
 Indeed the idea in government today is that a politician doesn't need to know anything except how to get into power, not disimiliar to the first warrior class.  Then the civil service can be the brains for the brute buffoon.
Today the minister of health is next day the minister of education, next day the minister of agriculture.  But what are the exceptions.  If the minister of churches was always a priest then we'd say there was a likelihood of a 'theocracy'  wherein the clergy ruled.  Today that's not true.
I don't know if knowing pigs makes a better farmer or a better leader in agriculture anymore than knowing medicine makes a better doctor and a better leader in medicine. The world ran well enough when a stupid grunt with strong arm told everyone what to do and killed those who didn't do it their way.
It's just that there's nothing democratic about a tyranny and there's nothing democratic about a theocracy.
I don't know what we have politically but it's evident it's not working very well and yet politics is about the least worst choice since it's never ever about the best choice.
It seems to me that the 'new administration' is nothing more than the 'old administration' which has been around since the first guy figured he could enslave the farmers and everyone else.
With power you can be ignorant of everything and still remain in power.That raises the question then as to whether God need be smart or stupid?  Even world leadership that claimed to be divinely inspired (Nero thought he was God) wasn't all the bright from an historical perspective.
Administration might well be about what you know but more and more it seems it's about 'who' you know.  Loyalty to the throne counts so much that an English Premier is famous for saying "I don't need you to agree with me when I'm right, I need you to agree with me when I'm wrong."
Regardless, I believe God's in charge and as such the world is unfolding as it should.