The best one I ever heard of was from my grandfather. In order to receive a promotion at the company he worked for, he was required to attain a master’s degree. He was an engineer, of sorts, shall we say.

This was the 1960’s, and there was my grandfather sitting in a classroom with a bunch of 22 year old hotshots, while he was 50 years old. For 6 weeks, no one spoke to him, he wasn’t called on, the professor ignored him, and whatever work he did received an average grade.

One day, a singularly difficult real life engineering problem was presented in class from a local company called JPL. When none of the students could correctly answer it, the professor asked if anyone had any ideas…..

I love this part….

My grandfather raised his hand and answered it. The professor told him he was wrong. Mr. Professor then told the class the answer. Grandpa then interrupted the professor and informed him that the answer given to the class turned out to be incorrect for that particular alloy, and that the week prior my Grandpa’s team had found that with a 2% increase of cadmium, the answer was as my Grandpa said. The professor then asked Grandpa to come to the board and explain it in writing. He did. The professor then asked him who he was and what his job was.

After the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Manhattan and other projects were thusly discussed, Grandpa never sat down in that class again. Or any other. He taught the class as one who actually did these things…from Fat Man and Little Boy to the Saturn rocket booster and everything in between.

At the end of the semester, Grandpa received an “A”, and the professor informed him that he had received average grades before because his work just seemed too different than the textbook answers. The professor called a meeting of the department, and after a 60 minute interview they gave him his master’s degree and offered him an honourary doctorate if he would teach there. He declined.

Six months later, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Every July 21st for 20 years, a new offer was sent to Grandpa to receive his doctorate and teach. He wasn’t ignored any more.

[You said in your interview that the Americans have no analysts on Russia left who would be familiar with our mentality, people, and culture. How can they declare us their enemies if they know nothing about our country?]

"They have no interest in that.

The United States has lost diplomacy as a method for establishing contacts, holding candid discussions, and identifying ways to strike a compromise.

It is not necessarily about specialists in Russian, European, Asian, or African studies. I don’t see serious specialists there.

They are accustomed to making demands.

They have even stooped to rudely and publicly telling China what to do.

Reportedly, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu had a telephone conversation with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell. The US official said Washington was dissatisfied with Beijing supporting Moscow.

How can they say such a thing to the great power of China?

What about the reputation of the Americans themselves?

There is also a statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. I can’t get enough of his quotes.

He said that the West (through Ukraine) must necessarily win. If Russia wins, no one will ever be able to rely on the United States when they need help.

You can’t help thinking about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Syria (which they will supposedly leave). They will supposedly leave Iraq too, and they have effectively fled Afghanistan.

Speaking of help provided by the United States, they have a small nation of Haiti sitting right next to them, which they have been taking care of for more than a hundred years now.

Even before the UN was created, they were nurturing dictators, toppling them, and putting in new ones.

However, the Americans are powerless when it comes to preventing thuggery, rampant theft and embezzlement of public funds in that country, which is probably the world’s poorest economy.

It would not be difficult for the United States to take a sliver of the Ukrainian pie and solve at least this problem.

Instead, they showed up at the UN Security Council again and are trying to lure in someone from Africa to ensure law and order in Haiti (the US fiefdom).

Let them first sort things out in their own backyard, or rather a small portion of it.

It is sad to acknowledge that the psychology of global dominance and retaining hegemonism at any cost has never helped the United States solve any issues on the ground."

-Excerpt from remarks by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an interview with Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre, Moscow, March 28, 2024.

There are two problems with “good” dictators:

• There aren’t that many of them
• They don’t live forever

When a dictator creates a political system, that system is dependent on them…and on whoever comes after them.

If the line of successors is an unbroken chain of good leaders, all is well and good. But that hasn’t happened yet to date…

One historical example I keep thinking of is this guy: Otto von Bismarck (Otto von Bismarck – Wikipedia)

My 15 year old daughter came home from Knott’s Berry Farm one night around midnight in tears. Someone had stolen her iPhone while she and her friends were on a ride and she was worried I would be mad.

I told her to hold on for a moment, went to my computer for Find My iPhone, and told her, “I found it. Let’s go.” She asked where and I told her, “To get your iPhone. It’s at an apartment complex in Santa Ana.”

We found the apartment building and I called the police. I brought them up to speed and they said they’d meet us at a gas station about a mile away. My daughter was starting to see some hope.

Three police cars showed up and, after I showed him where the phone was, the officer in charge said we could park down the street and watch. So we did.

It was about 2:30a and the lights were still on in the apartment for some reason.

The lead cop went upstairs and pounded on the door. A middle aged guy answered the door and the cop said a stolen phone was inside the apartment and he wanted it brought to the door (he told us later). My daughter and I heard the guy yell, “Anybody have an iPhone that doesn’t belong to you?” After a few seconds, he shook his head “no”.

The officer told us he said, “Look, I know it’s in there. So you can either bring it out, or I’ll stand here until the search warrant arrives and we’ll go in and find it ourselves.”

We saw the door close and less than a minute later the guy handed the officer my daughter’s phone. He brought it down and my daughter logged in to prove it was hers.

She couldn’t believe we actually got her phone back, but I was committed to fixing this so my daughter wouldn’t become a victim.

We got home about 4am, but neither of us was tired – LOL.

I know everything worked out in the exact way it had to for us to succeed, but it was a great lesson for my daughter about standing up for yourself and taking appropriate action. She continues to be a very empowered individual and I like to think I had a hand in that.

[NATO countries are planning to send their fighters to Ukraine. The media report that F-16 aircraft will be deployed against Russian forces and facilities in the special military operation zone. Will we be allowed to hit these targets at NATO airfields?]

"First, if they supply F-16s (they are talking about this, and it looks like they are training pilots; I believe that you realise this like no one else and better than others), this will not change the situation on the battlefield.

We will destroy their aircraft just like we are now destroying their tanks, armoured vehicles and other equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems.

Of course, we would see them as legitimate targets if they operate from the airfields of third countries, no matter where they are located.

F-16 aircraft can also carry nuclear weapons, and we will also have to heed this while organising our combat operations."

-Excerpt from remarks by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with army aviation pilots of the Russian Federation Defence Ministry’s 344th Centre for Combat Employment and Retraining in Torzhok, Tver Oblast, Russia, March 27, 2024.

South Korea arrogantly supports the Philippines on the South China Sea issue. Why?

How rampant is Yin Xiyue’s government today? In addition to commenting on the South China Sea issue, it also began to interfere in the Taiwan Strait of China. According to recent news, South Korea’s position on the Taiwan Strait issue has become more and more outspoken, which has aggravated the tension between China and South Korea.

There are two things.

The first thing is that the South Korean side invited the Taiwan Province authorities to participate in the so-called “Leaders’ Democracy Summit”, but after being firmly opposed by the Chinese side, South Korea directly “countered” Chinese mainland’s criticism of the Taiwan Province authorities’ participation in the Democracy Summit, claiming that the event was aimed at “strengthening democracy” and “not targeting specific countries”.

At the same time, he reiterated that the “One China” policy of South Korea will remain unchanged. Secondly, the South Korean side expressed serious concern about the use of water cannons by the China Marine Police against Philippine ships some time ago, threatening that this action has aggravated the tension in the region.

Whether on the Taiwan Strait issue or the South China Sea issue, South Korea’s position deserves our high vigilance.

These two things are enough to show that Yin Xiyue’s government has changed the cautious and neutral stance that South Korea has adhered to for many years, and began to take sides and openly intervene in sensitive issues such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

If South Korea still supports the “one China” policy, as it says, then why invite the Taiwan Province authorities to participate in the democracy summit? Knowing that the current situation between the two sides of the strait is tense and the relationship is subtle, it is difficult for the South Korean side to invite it at this time without letting the outside world guess that this is a disguised support.

As Lin Jian, the new spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphasized, there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan Province is an inalienable part of China. So, what is the intention of South Korea to invite the leaders of Taiwan Province authorities to attend the summit?

At least in my opinion, this is obviously malicious. In safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the PLA has always dared to take action. South Korea’s move is tantamount to stepping on the most sensitive red line of the PLA.

In this regard, the same is true on the South China Sea issue. What does the contradiction between China and the Philippines have to do with South Korea? Apart from the South China Sea issue, what does it have to do with South Korea on the Taiwan Strait issue? What’s more, it is reasonable and legal for the Philippines to illegally invade Ren’ai Reef, Huangyan Island and China to respond with water cannons, while it is ridiculous for South Korea to accuse China of doing so.

So wantonly stepping on China’s red line, is it difficult for South Korea to be warned by water cannons like the Philippines?

Yin Xiyue’s government is at the forefront of the Sino-US game, which is not only very dangerous, but also fatal. The South China Sea issue is also the same. South Korea is not a party, and forcing it to annoy will only make it pay a great price.

A lost war is a heavy burden. Some German soldiers added up to 10 years as a POW in Siberia. Many died in the camps, some died after returning home when eating their first big meal for years. Others discovered their wives had remarried and committed suicide. Those who made it back into normal life, weren’t acknowledged for what they had done, but they weren’t despised either.

Having returned from war, the former soldiers worked extremely hard and disciplined. Maybe a coping strategy to get along with what they had experienced during the war. Germany soon prospered. The “omertà”, that is, the principle of remaining silent about Nazism, was common sense until the late 60ies. The early years of the Federal Republic were characterized by strict conservatism. Everybody felt he or she had done something wrong. Nobody was interested to talk about it, knowing that some brutal guys would get away with it then.

When veterans met, they would discuss how they might have won WWII: “If I’d been in charge at the Ostfront, I’d taken all Panzers together at one point and hit the “Ivan” in the north where he least expected…”

Besides, their recipes were strikingly similar: Push harder, focus more, ignore casualties, and produce more “Wunderwaffen”. Some regarded Hitler as a visionary man, who lost WWII because “too many hounds soon catch the hare”. Most of the veterans I talked to were farmers. They made a little extra money cutting wood in the winter. And while they sat at the fireplace to warm up, they’d sing Russian songs. Stockholm syndrome came alive.

I had contact with many former Nazis.

Only a few I’ve met displayed attitudes and feelings as one would expect, that is, feelings of guilt, empathy for the victims, and anger about the lies they had been told. These “soft guys” seemed to be lucky, the war was over, and they had come out alive. Nazi times weren’t good times for them. They preferred not to be reminded of that. They would escape in some bonhomie gesture: “It’s good this is over, my boy”.

The majority of them pleaded “not guilty” when asked. “I had to follow orders, and we had an oath…” They wouldn’t talk much.

The normal soldiers were better off than former victims of the Nazis, or people who had fled into exile. Among the survivors, they were the most frustrated. Never recognized, if not despised for leaving the country in times of war, they had to witness some big former Nazis succeed and no one cared. Many intellectuals preferred not to return to Germany in the 1950ies and early 60ies. 1968, the time of the students’ uprising, was the turning point:

The younger generations asked questions about the past. The country changed a lot in the aftermath.

(Pinterest) The typical angle of the cap was no sign of individualism

The few “hardliners” could be recognized by their gait: Faster. More dedicated. Fixing with her eyes. They really were different. They mocked democracy and everything that goes with it. Not only that, they grinned and wore their caps at a certain angle, as can be seen in photographs of Wehrmacht daredevils: an odd mixture of courage and stubbornness, as well as a willingness to immediately stand at attention when needed and instructed, and to carry out any command uncritically.

I think they promised their wives not to talk too much. But occasionally, they did. They still internally wore the “Führer’s uniform” and saw an authoritarian regime as the most effective way to run a country. They often reassembled into organizations like the firefighters, whose uniforms—and commands—were oddly similar to those of the Wehrmacht.

Post-War firefighters in their uniforms.

And what about their attitude to Nazism?

No one I talked to, told me, he or she wanted the Nazis back. I wouldn’t put this up too high, for speaking out for the Nazis in public is prosecuted for criminal law. No law was needed to keep the Germans from going to war again. WWII seemed to have been a fundamental threat to almost everyone’s life. Nevertheless, deep in their hearts many still felt for Hitler, as you can tell from phrases like “Under Adolf this wouldn’t have happened”, e.g. when talking about how to deal with unemployment or how to make the lazy hippie guys of the 60ies and 70ies go to work. I remember some bad arguments between them and the younger generations, which often ended in yelling “Wenn’s euch nicht passt, geht doch rüber!” (“If you don’t like it here, move to East Germany!”). To me, the most shocking experience was their readiness, to lock people up in forced labor camps and “cure” misbehavior through hard, physical work. “A short trial, and then put them in front of the wall and: Ratatatatata!”

Yes, the Nazi soldiers, and their whole generation were confronted with the past by their children or grandchildren, but I cannot recall a single veteran, who in a discussion, changed sides or openly argued against the Nazis. The poison still worked. They didn’t tell us all. It was as if the Nazis had a grip on them until their last breath. They died one by one. Six of us lend a hand as we carried the coffin.

Many of us do not know what exactly grandpa had done, and yes, this is some kind of burden.

EDIT: This answer is based on my experiences during my childhood in rural, protestant Germany. The biographies of higher-ranking officers, Nazi Party leaders, doctors,, or judges were different. Many of the ex-Nazis, who launched a second career in Post War Germany, only pretended to be democrats. In reality, they cared for “former comrades” in need and heavily influenced the view on opposition to the Nazis. I have addressed these issues in different answers.

There’s quite a few. If you are from the West, some of these might shock you. If you are not, well, enjoy the ride 🙂

Number 1: Muammar Gaddafi.

Gaddafi when he was a lot younger. Quite handsome, right?

Gaddafi is often portrayed as a bad guy, and as Ronnie put it “the mad dog of the Middle East”

But that is in fact, not true.

Let’s take a look at some of the luxuries that Libyan citizens had during his rule

1: Free electricity.

2: Free housing.

3: Free healthcare. Not only free healthcare, but the best free healthcare in Africa and the Arab world.

4: A high GDP per capita for two decades before the West started sanctioning Libya.

5: A portion of the money made from oil sales went directly into the bank accounts of Libyan citizens.

6: If healthcare in Libya was not sufficient, the state would finance the entire trip to a foreign hospital.

I could go on and on, but those are just six things.

Also this

Libya had the highest rating on the Human Development Index in Africa while Gaddafi ruled it.

So while he might be portrayed as a bad guy, he was actually a really good leader.

Number 2: Lee Kuan Yew

A young Lee Kuan Yew

Lee. Kuan Yew was the Prime Minister of Singapore for three decades. In those three decades, he transformed the undeveloped city state, which had no natural resources, not much land area and a small army, into a shining example of a developed country. But he did this with many challenges facing him, like the multiculturalism of Singapore. The population was a collection of Malays, Chinese, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Indonesians and many more ethnic groups.

While he did implement dictatorial measures, such as muffling the press, outlawing protests and arbitrarily detaining people, he still holds the title of “The Least Brutal Dictator in History”. He did not kill a single person during his three-decade-long rule. Torture was not implemented either.

Before he took the mantle of leader, Singapore was nothing more than a collection of plastic houses and shanties. Look at Singapore now.

Quite the success story, isn’t it?

Number 3: Park Chung-hee

Park Chung-hee. Slick haircut, right?

Park Chung-hee didn’t exactly come to power by democratic means. He made himself leader in a military coup. But unlike many leaders of military juntas, he was not a selfish blowhard who worked only to enrich himself. Instead, he enriched his country, South Korea.

He developed South Korea’s banking sector, business sector, and enriched the country with a policy of export-oriented industralization.

To give you some perspective, when he came to power, the GDP per capita in South Korea was a miserable 59 dollars. When his rule ended, it was 1,000 dollars.

Unfortunately, he was betrayed and assassinated in 1979, before he could do any more good to South Korea.

And as a bonus, he defended South Korea from communism.

Number 4: Qaboos bin Said al Said, or Sultan of Oman for short.

Looking quite dashing in a military uniform there.

When he took power way back in 1970, Oman was the poorest country in the Arab world. Now, it gained the nickname of “The Switzerland of the Middle East”. All thanks to this man.

Oman, like many other Arab countries, is rich mainly due to oil exports, but added to that, Oman also has a developed banking and finance sector. Hence the nickname. Oman also serves as one big negotiating table, due to its policy of military neutrality.

In 1970, Oman had just three or four schools. Now it has over a thousand, and a few universities, the most famous one being named after him. Also in 1970, the average GDP per capita in Oman was 345 dollars. Now, it is 15,000 dollars. Qaboos still rules Oman, and continues to improve it.

While other Arab countries constantly squabble, Oman quietly sits and looks by, enjoying its wealth.

Number 5: Thomas Sankara

Thomas Sankara. Humble military uniform.

Sankara achieved many great things during his short rule.

He ordered the planting of million upon millions of trees, in order to prevent desertification. He lowered his own salary, and rid the government of most of its corruption, which was a giant problem. He connected the country via roads, and built housing for the citizens of his country. He made it self-sufficient in farming. And he saved the country from French dominance.

He renamed the country from Upper Volta, its colonial name, to Burkina Faso. He composed the national anthem, and designed the flag of Burkina Faso.

Unfortunately, he was killed in a military coup, which was, predictably, sponsored by the French. It installed a brutal dictator who impoverished the country and was a puppet of the French.

So, those were the top five dictators who did their country good.

EDIT: After some research, I came to the conclusion that Lee Kuan Yew had in fact not rigged elections. Even the fiercest critics of his don’t say that he did. I am sorry to spread that misinformation around. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!