I'd be happy to read The Banality of Evil and the Origins of Totalitarianism. I've been meaning to read this book, so with your suggestion, I have downloaded it on Audible.
Not sure what your family background is, but my family were Western Canadians who had to fight in both World Wars. My father's father fought at Vimy Ridge and all other battles that McNaughton led to the end of WWI. Most of my parent's relatives fought in WWII.
My husband's family, Greek Western Macedonians, had to fight Mussolini, Hitler and then the Greek Communists.
You've assigned me a book to read. Based on the direct experience of my husband's family, I have a film for you:
Totalitarianism doesn't have its origins only in socialism. Totalitarianism develops also through intolerance on the right. Not all socialism develops into totalitarianism, and not all principled conservatism develops into totalitarianism.
The suggestion that socialism necessarily and only leads to totalitarianism is naive.
Today, the US does not have a socialist government. It has a right leaning, totalitarian leaning government. Musk retweeted the other day that “Stalin, Mao, and Hitler didn’t murder millions of people. Their public sector employees did.” All the while, more then 80% of Tesla's batteries come from China, a totalitarian regime. It's well known that Xi Jinping has been trying to pave over the atrocities of Mao. No doubt, this retweet was meant by Musk to gain favour with Xi.
As I read the Banality of Evil, I'll be curious to see if it picks up on the fact that totalitarianism does not just emerge on the left.
I appreciate your viewpoint. It's ok to agree to disagree on historical interpretations and understanding.
As for Musk, it's one thing to criticize and disagree with his politics, but that should not colour his very real accomplishments in rocketry and space with SpaceX -- give credit where it's due. NASA never created a reusable rocket or a booster that could land back on Earth. The EU and its launchers, not reusable. Falcon 9 has transformed the space industry with its reliability and reusability. https://spaceexplored.com/2025/01/13/how-much-bigger-can-spacex-falcon-booster-reuse-records-get/
It's important to compare apples to apples -- Saturn V, which was the rocket that took the Apollo moon landers to space, is best compared with the Super Heavy Booster and not the Starship which is more comparable with NASA landers or the space shuttle, sort of. There's never been anything as big as Starship so it's difficult to compare. Notice that the Super Heavy Booster has landed back on Earth twice using the "chopsticks".
The SpaceX development model is to build, fly, fail, fix the problem. That's how they were able to develop and perfect Falcon 9. SpaceX has made getting to space more affordable and those accomplishments should be fairly recognized even if one disagrees with the politics of the company's owner.
This info graphic at Statista visualizes the extraordinary launching data over the past 3 years:
First, I believe your PhD is in history from UBC. Perhaps you have a technical background? It's not clear from your bio.
I get it that I don't have my bio online. But for the record, I have a Honours Math and Physics background from the Royal Military College of Canada (Honours BSc), a Computer and Systems Engineering from Carleton University and an MASc, with thesis, in Electrical Engineering from UBC. I also have a long track record working the electronics industry as an engineer.
Re: Musk and the Falcon 9: The Falcon9 is a smaller rocket than the Saturn V and Starship. Much of the work on Falcon 9 was not done by Musk directly. I agree that the Falcon 9 has impressive reliability, but it is not the rocket that is going to get us to Mars (or even the moon). The Falcon 9 has an entirely different engine, propellant and design than Starship.
As to the purported "build, fly, fix an fail" approach that SpaceX says they are using, the Starship is not a software app. The new models of Starship seem to be worse than the early models, which indicate that the "build, fly, fix and fail approach" that SpaceX says they are using is devolving into a situation commonly seen when the underlying failure mechanisms in a complex system are not understood, but the designers can't bring themselves to admit that. "Build, fly, fix and fail" only work if the engineers are able to discern the underlying mechanisms of failure and correct the design. So far, that does not appear to be happening with the Starship.
For comparison, the Saturn V program had completely debugged vibration, propellant and temperature issues with the F1 engines by 1965, four years before Apollo-11.
The problems with the Starship engines are starting to resemble the problems the Russians had with their heavy lift N1 rocket in the 1960s and 70s:
Not saying that the Starship is a complete no go, but there is a gulf between where the Starship is now, and Musk's prognostications that Starship will go to Mars in 2026.
Furthermore, NASA already landed a robot on Mars. It wasn't a humanoid robot, but it was a robot.
If I wanted to place a bet, it would be on Artemis, not Starship.
Thank you for sharing your background, that sounds really interesting and that you've had a fascinating career! Getting back to the moon with the Artemis project is quite the endeavour and as you know is a multifaceted public-private partnership with NASA, ESA, CSA, JAXA, MBRSC on the public side and Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others on the private side. I hope it succeeds. Space is a big place and there's room for many competitors. I do not wish for any of them to fail.
Yes, it's true that my PhD is in history and I have taught geopolitics of energy and environment. But, as George Friedman and other geopolitical thinkers say, space is the latest contested area of global competition and it's worth keeping informed on different vectors of potential conflict and cooperation. I've done some reading and research in this area and personally know people on both sides of the Atlantic working as engineers in space programs. When I have questions about different things I speak with them and value their insights. It's important to try to understand potential global flashpoints even if they're in orbit, the moon, Mars, or space in general!
My point in mentioning Falcon 9 was to illustrate that the "build, test, fail, fix, repeat" process has proved successful; it has also been successful in developing the Super Heavy Booster. I agree that it's too soon to say the process isn't working for the Starship upper stage. Thank you for the comment on the Russian difficulties with their heavy rockets in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps the new raptor engines, which are supposed to be deployed later this year, will make a big difference. What do you think?
I'm grateful for this conversation and appreciate your insights. Thank you.
"Perhaps the new raptor engines, which are supposed to be deployed later this year, will make a big difference. What do you think?"
I think that there are integration aspects of the raptor engines, along with problems with the fuel distribution system to these engines, that the designers seem to be struggling to understand. I also have some reservations about the propellant used for the Falcon engines.
Someone wrote up a comparison of the Falcon 9 to the Starship:
I would say that, in terms of design complexity, the Starship is at least an order of magnitude more complex than the Falcon 9, for the following reasons:
(1) Starship is about 10x larger in terms of thrust than the Falcon 9.
(2) The propellant chosen for Starship is hotter and less stable than Falcon 9.
(3) Starship has many more engines and, as a result, a more complex fuel distribution system.
Online, I've seen problems stating that SpaceX will be able to back out these problems with computer simulation or hiring more engineers. Even with unlimited computer simulation capability, if the underlying mechanisms of failure are not modeled correctly, computer simulation will not help. Also, hiring a lot of junior engineers will not fix a complex system problem . . . as they say: too many cooks in the kitchen.
Anyway, that's my helicopter view. I could be wrong.
Thank you for the film recommendation, I will take a look at it.
It would seem Musk was trying to make the point that the atrocities couldn't have happened without the cooperation of the the public sector employees. There is an uncomfortable truth in that.
There is a great deal of research that has been done on the attitudes of corporate and public employees during the interwar period. Victor Klemperer's The Language of the Third Reich is chilling, as is the first two articles in the collection, Business and Industry in Nazi Germany edited by Francis Nicosia and Jonathan Huener. Adam Lebor and Roger Boyes try to understand the mentality of the average German and offer some interesting conclusions in Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich. Lastly, chapter seven titled "The Intrusion by Totalitarian Thinking," in Joost Merloo's The Rape of the Mind offers a compelling analysis of how human thinking and habits can be moulded, influenced, altered and the techniques involved in the totalitarian system maintaining its power.
I too am a western Canadian but I have been living in Europe for almost 20 years now, in several different countries including the UK and Germany. What I see is a significant decline in economies and societies; communities being destabilized; and governments taking on an increasingly technocratic micromanaging approach to citizens. Today, people in the UK are being put in jail for reweeting a post the government didn't like whilst violent criminals are given early release to make room for the tweeters. Police are coming to the doors of journalists to question them about opinions expressed in their articles. In the EU, the digital wallet (which will contain every piece of documentation about an individual in one place), digital ID, and digital currency are just the latest in centralizing data and information about an individual. From my extensive reading on European totalitarian regimes, all of this and more are setting off warning bells.
My husband has extended family in Greece, so we follow Greek and EU news quite closely. No doubt, there are problems in Europe. Yes, there is excessive censorship in some cases. But it is Germany, not the US, who has come clean on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Where is Trump on this? Could it be that he well knew that the US was collaborating on gain of function coronavirus research at the WIV between 2016 and 2019 and doesn't want to own up to that?
I'm surprised that so many of the crowd blindly cheering Trump on don't realize that X/Twitter is still censored (but now in Musk's favour instead of in Biden's).
Regarding Hilter, no doubt, there was corruption and compromise in Germany in the interwar period that aided Hitler's rise to power. That being said, it is widely understood that the demand for reparations from the victors of WWI crushed the German economy and contributed to skyrocketing inflation. Furthermore, regardless of the corruption and attitude of the German people, only a few years after WWI, Hitler had organized the Schutzstaffel (SS) which began to terrorize anyone who tried to rise in opposition to the Nazis. They also organized a mass surveillance organization. Hilter, as well has his henchmen Himmler and Göring, were directly involved in these surveillance and terror operations.
So, no, Musk is flatly wrong in stating that Hitler didn't terrorize and kill millions of people and also wrong in stating that the atrocities were caused by Germany's public servants. It's nonsense, plain and simple.
Musk should stop dabbling in politics, reinventing history and get back to running his companies. Looks like the SpaceX Starship has major problems with its engines which are not going to be resolved anytime soon:
So what gives? Not only is Musk spouting nonsense about 20th century atrocities, he's also having major trouble delivering on his most important project: the Starship. And yes, most of the batteries in the Tesla come from an authoritarian regime (China).
Great article - and really who cares about Spain - it's a fun cheap/nasty vacation spot for the British!
But as you point out Mr. Sánchez is getting a voice and being heard, so he must feel his position is threatened. It is rather the pot calling the kettle black in this article, as far as the politicians and the tech billionaires.
Newspaper used to be great - but they were mostly a one sided era, info with little response.
Now everyone has an opinion and wants to be heard, I guess us included!
Thank you for your comment. You might want to start by reading anything by Hannah Arendt to try to understand what totalitarianism is and the role of individuals in the bureaucracy who were "just following orders". Here are some good places to begin: Eichman in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil, and The Origins of Totalitarianism.
I'd be happy to read The Banality of Evil and the Origins of Totalitarianism. I've been meaning to read this book, so with your suggestion, I have downloaded it on Audible.
Not sure what your family background is, but my family were Western Canadians who had to fight in both World Wars. My father's father fought at Vimy Ridge and all other battles that McNaughton led to the end of WWI. Most of my parent's relatives fought in WWII.
My husband's family, Greek Western Macedonians, had to fight Mussolini, Hitler and then the Greek Communists.
You've assigned me a book to read. Based on the direct experience of my husband's family, I have a film for you:
Eleni
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcT8pX5mBIU
Totalitarianism doesn't have its origins only in socialism. Totalitarianism develops also through intolerance on the right. Not all socialism develops into totalitarianism, and not all principled conservatism develops into totalitarianism.
The suggestion that socialism necessarily and only leads to totalitarianism is naive.
Today, the US does not have a socialist government. It has a right leaning, totalitarian leaning government. Musk retweeted the other day that “Stalin, Mao, and Hitler didn’t murder millions of people. Their public sector employees did.” All the while, more then 80% of Tesla's batteries come from China, a totalitarian regime. It's well known that Xi Jinping has been trying to pave over the atrocities of Mao. No doubt, this retweet was meant by Musk to gain favour with Xi.
As I read the Banality of Evil, I'll be curious to see if it picks up on the fact that totalitarianism does not just emerge on the left.
I appreciate your viewpoint. It's ok to agree to disagree on historical interpretations and understanding.
As for Musk, it's one thing to criticize and disagree with his politics, but that should not colour his very real accomplishments in rocketry and space with SpaceX -- give credit where it's due. NASA never created a reusable rocket or a booster that could land back on Earth. The EU and its launchers, not reusable. Falcon 9 has transformed the space industry with its reliability and reusability. https://spaceexplored.com/2025/01/13/how-much-bigger-can-spacex-falcon-booster-reuse-records-get/
It's important to compare apples to apples -- Saturn V, which was the rocket that took the Apollo moon landers to space, is best compared with the Super Heavy Booster and not the Starship which is more comparable with NASA landers or the space shuttle, sort of. There's never been anything as big as Starship so it's difficult to compare. Notice that the Super Heavy Booster has landed back on Earth twice using the "chopsticks".
The SpaceX development model is to build, fly, fail, fix the problem. That's how they were able to develop and perfect Falcon 9. SpaceX has made getting to space more affordable and those accomplishments should be fairly recognized even if one disagrees with the politics of the company's owner.
This info graphic at Statista visualizes the extraordinary launching data over the past 3 years:
https://www.statista.com/chart/29410/number-of-worldwide-rocket-launches-by-companies-and-space-agencies/
This info graphic shows how much more affordable getting to space is because of SpaceX:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-launched-over-80-of-all-orbital-payload-mass-in-q1-2023.html
First, I believe your PhD is in history from UBC. Perhaps you have a technical background? It's not clear from your bio.
I get it that I don't have my bio online. But for the record, I have a Honours Math and Physics background from the Royal Military College of Canada (Honours BSc), a Computer and Systems Engineering from Carleton University and an MASc, with thesis, in Electrical Engineering from UBC. I also have a long track record working the electronics industry as an engineer.
Re: Musk and the Falcon 9: The Falcon9 is a smaller rocket than the Saturn V and Starship. Much of the work on Falcon 9 was not done by Musk directly. I agree that the Falcon 9 has impressive reliability, but it is not the rocket that is going to get us to Mars (or even the moon). The Falcon 9 has an entirely different engine, propellant and design than Starship.
As to the purported "build, fly, fix an fail" approach that SpaceX says they are using, the Starship is not a software app. The new models of Starship seem to be worse than the early models, which indicate that the "build, fly, fix and fail approach" that SpaceX says they are using is devolving into a situation commonly seen when the underlying failure mechanisms in a complex system are not understood, but the designers can't bring themselves to admit that. "Build, fly, fix and fail" only work if the engineers are able to discern the underlying mechanisms of failure and correct the design. So far, that does not appear to be happening with the Starship.
For comparison, the Saturn V program had completely debugged vibration, propellant and temperature issues with the F1 engines by 1965, four years before Apollo-11.
The problems with the Starship engines are starting to resemble the problems the Russians had with their heavy lift N1 rocket in the 1960s and 70s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
Not saying that the Starship is a complete no go, but there is a gulf between where the Starship is now, and Musk's prognostications that Starship will go to Mars in 2026.
Furthermore, NASA already landed a robot on Mars. It wasn't a humanoid robot, but it was a robot.
If I wanted to place a bet, it would be on Artemis, not Starship.
Thank you for sharing your background, that sounds really interesting and that you've had a fascinating career! Getting back to the moon with the Artemis project is quite the endeavour and as you know is a multifaceted public-private partnership with NASA, ESA, CSA, JAXA, MBRSC on the public side and Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others on the private side. I hope it succeeds. Space is a big place and there's room for many competitors. I do not wish for any of them to fail.
Yes, it's true that my PhD is in history and I have taught geopolitics of energy and environment. But, as George Friedman and other geopolitical thinkers say, space is the latest contested area of global competition and it's worth keeping informed on different vectors of potential conflict and cooperation. I've done some reading and research in this area and personally know people on both sides of the Atlantic working as engineers in space programs. When I have questions about different things I speak with them and value their insights. It's important to try to understand potential global flashpoints even if they're in orbit, the moon, Mars, or space in general!
My point in mentioning Falcon 9 was to illustrate that the "build, test, fail, fix, repeat" process has proved successful; it has also been successful in developing the Super Heavy Booster. I agree that it's too soon to say the process isn't working for the Starship upper stage. Thank you for the comment on the Russian difficulties with their heavy rockets in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps the new raptor engines, which are supposed to be deployed later this year, will make a big difference. What do you think?
I'm grateful for this conversation and appreciate your insights. Thank you.
"Perhaps the new raptor engines, which are supposed to be deployed later this year, will make a big difference. What do you think?"
I think that there are integration aspects of the raptor engines, along with problems with the fuel distribution system to these engines, that the designers seem to be struggling to understand. I also have some reservations about the propellant used for the Falcon engines.
Someone wrote up a comparison of the Falcon 9 to the Starship:
https://everydayastronaut.com/definitive-guide-to-starship/
I would say that, in terms of design complexity, the Starship is at least an order of magnitude more complex than the Falcon 9, for the following reasons:
(1) Starship is about 10x larger in terms of thrust than the Falcon 9.
(2) The propellant chosen for Starship is hotter and less stable than Falcon 9.
(3) Starship has many more engines and, as a result, a more complex fuel distribution system.
Online, I've seen problems stating that SpaceX will be able to back out these problems with computer simulation or hiring more engineers. Even with unlimited computer simulation capability, if the underlying mechanisms of failure are not modeled correctly, computer simulation will not help. Also, hiring a lot of junior engineers will not fix a complex system problem . . . as they say: too many cooks in the kitchen.
Anyway, that's my helicopter view. I could be wrong.
Thank you for the film recommendation, I will take a look at it.
It would seem Musk was trying to make the point that the atrocities couldn't have happened without the cooperation of the the public sector employees. There is an uncomfortable truth in that.
There is a great deal of research that has been done on the attitudes of corporate and public employees during the interwar period. Victor Klemperer's The Language of the Third Reich is chilling, as is the first two articles in the collection, Business and Industry in Nazi Germany edited by Francis Nicosia and Jonathan Huener. Adam Lebor and Roger Boyes try to understand the mentality of the average German and offer some interesting conclusions in Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich. Lastly, chapter seven titled "The Intrusion by Totalitarian Thinking," in Joost Merloo's The Rape of the Mind offers a compelling analysis of how human thinking and habits can be moulded, influenced, altered and the techniques involved in the totalitarian system maintaining its power.
I too am a western Canadian but I have been living in Europe for almost 20 years now, in several different countries including the UK and Germany. What I see is a significant decline in economies and societies; communities being destabilized; and governments taking on an increasingly technocratic micromanaging approach to citizens. Today, people in the UK are being put in jail for reweeting a post the government didn't like whilst violent criminals are given early release to make room for the tweeters. Police are coming to the doors of journalists to question them about opinions expressed in their articles. In the EU, the digital wallet (which will contain every piece of documentation about an individual in one place), digital ID, and digital currency are just the latest in centralizing data and information about an individual. From my extensive reading on European totalitarian regimes, all of this and more are setting off warning bells.
My husband has extended family in Greece, so we follow Greek and EU news quite closely. No doubt, there are problems in Europe. Yes, there is excessive censorship in some cases. But it is Germany, not the US, who has come clean on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Where is Trump on this? Could it be that he well knew that the US was collaborating on gain of function coronavirus research at the WIV between 2016 and 2019 and doesn't want to own up to that?
I'm surprised that so many of the crowd blindly cheering Trump on don't realize that X/Twitter is still censored (but now in Musk's favour instead of in Biden's).
Regarding Hilter, no doubt, there was corruption and compromise in Germany in the interwar period that aided Hitler's rise to power. That being said, it is widely understood that the demand for reparations from the victors of WWI crushed the German economy and contributed to skyrocketing inflation. Furthermore, regardless of the corruption and attitude of the German people, only a few years after WWI, Hitler had organized the Schutzstaffel (SS) which began to terrorize anyone who tried to rise in opposition to the Nazis. They also organized a mass surveillance organization. Hilter, as well has his henchmen Himmler and Göring, were directly involved in these surveillance and terror operations.
So, no, Musk is flatly wrong in stating that Hitler didn't terrorize and kill millions of people and also wrong in stating that the atrocities were caused by Germany's public servants. It's nonsense, plain and simple.
Musk should stop dabbling in politics, reinventing history and get back to running his companies. Looks like the SpaceX Starship has major problems with its engines which are not going to be resolved anytime soon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut6Qm06Crg4
NASA's Saturn V F-1 engines never had these kinds of problems. Compared to SpaceX, NASA never lost a single Saturn V.
Insane Engineering Of The Saturn F-1 Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z37MdvcSaFY
So what gives? Not only is Musk spouting nonsense about 20th century atrocities, he's also having major trouble delivering on his most important project: the Starship. And yes, most of the batteries in the Tesla come from an authoritarian regime (China).
Great article - and really who cares about Spain - it's a fun cheap/nasty vacation spot for the British!
But as you point out Mr. Sánchez is getting a voice and being heard, so he must feel his position is threatened. It is rather the pot calling the kettle black in this article, as far as the politicians and the tech billionaires.
Newspaper used to be great - but they were mostly a one sided era, info with little response.
Now everyone has an opinion and wants to be heard, I guess us included!
Spare me the nonsense about free speech and socialism. No government is more repressive of free speech at this point than the US under Trump and Musk.
Is it really OK for Musk to retweet that Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't kill anyone? Maybe write about the real threat to democracy. It's not in Spain.
This actually happened:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/technology/elon-musk-x-post-hitler-stalin-mao.html
Wake up!
Thank you for your comment. You might want to start by reading anything by Hannah Arendt to try to understand what totalitarianism is and the role of individuals in the bureaucracy who were "just following orders". Here are some good places to begin: Eichman in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil, and The Origins of Totalitarianism.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Penguin-Classics-Hannah/dp/0143039881
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Totalitarianism-Penguin-Modern-Classics/dp/0241316758/ref=asc_df_0241316758?tag=bingshoppinga-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=79852089215531&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583451664012314&psc=1
Excellent article,
Thanks, Stu!