I was raised in a religious household also but instead of searching for answers I just lived with the self doubt and guilt. I have little tolerance for for believers now and almost none for anything approaching fervent, but when someone starts talking "back to god" they lose me. I think my wife actually ordered "Ameritopia" recently. I may attempt it when she is done.

I guess the fact that I spent my youth in a quest for a rational approach to religion (the reason I got kicked out of the Baptist church at 12) gives me a higher tolerance for fervent religious believers. Everyone needs some moral foundation, and if organized religion is their choice, so be it. I had no problem studying Mein Kampf to determine what drove such a sick mind, or Das Kapital. I do find Levin's march through the eminent Utopian visions to be a succinct introduction for those who don't want to wade through weighty tomes of philosophical works.

I tried to read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyrrany" once but when the basic premise is that we're going downhill because we're moving away from god I just couldn't stay with it. He knows a lot of American history but most of the time it's just too difficult to pick the facts out of the religious twist he puts on it to be worth the effort. He loses any credibility.

Have you read Mark Levin's "Ameritopia?" It gives a good comparative assessment of the history of Utopian concepts, with his own evaluation of the pluses and minuses.

Is it possible to view a chart of systems of government and not see it as ranking them in an ascending or descending order of good or evil? Proper or improper? Free or not free? I would have to agree that anarchists don't even consider the negative effects of irrational people as having any overall effect on their utopia but it is unwise to accept their beliefs as principles of any system when they ignore reality when envisioning that system. If you think about it, anarchy cannot even exist when 2 or more people (ok, maybe 3 or more) come together as a society. Someone will lead. By vote or by force, but someone will lead. Like DB said, anarchy is just what happens before totalitarianism takes over.

Glenn Beck has gotten better but it wouldn't surprise me to see him put together a portrayal of the government spectrum that attempts to not judge the participants. Unless, of course, they're islamists. Or violent. Or drug users. Or gay. Or atheists. And on, and on, and on.......

I suppose it does kind of make sense, though. Refusing to judge the systems of government (or lack of) by rational criteria would allow a person to order the systems in almost any arrangement and to choose whichever one met their fancy at the time. There's a philosophical link for you.

Both France and GB had a very strong core of socialists and communist sympathizers, both in and out of the government. They also had Nazi sympathizers, but those were being quickly discredited by 1939. Besides, both France and GB were convinced that victory over Germany will be a walk in the park; of, course, they did not have such illusions regarding the USSR, with its size and an apparent economic self-sufficiency.
As to the aid provided by the US and UK to the USSR, it could be summarized as: Most of wheeled transport used by the Soviets during the war (trucks, jeeps, Katyusha platforms), much of the high-protein army rations, most of the high octane aviation fuel (the USSR had plenty of oil, but lacked high octane refineries). There were important shipments (from the US/UK perspective) of tanks and aircraft, but those were insignificant overall on the Eastern front – AirCobras did OK, the tanks were poor compared to Russian models. The transfer of technology was very significant – both legal and clandestine. A number of Russian aircraft were either licensed copies of US models (Li-2/DC-3) or stolen copies (TU-4/B-29) and, of course, the atomic bomb design was steadily fed to Moscow throughout the war by both legal Lend-Lease transfers and by spies. No doubt that radio technology was also acquired from the West, as Russian electronics industry was primitive prior to 1941. With the fall of Italy, the Soviets took possession of some of the Italian fleet, with its technology.

In any group of three, one person will eventually be excluded.

Many individuals need someone to hate and rail against as well. I have known a few.

Yes, but those two were not. They were pure Jew-hating Ukrainians. As to the reasons for anti-Semitism in the USSR, there are several:
Russians and Ukrainians had a deep rooted anti-Semitism for centuries.
The fact that many of the early leaders of the revolution and the civil war were Jews gave them prominence. They were then thrown to the “wolves” and blamed for the ills of communism.
Jews were easy to isolate as a class and class warfare is part of the socialist strategy (the same as the Nazi’s). A socialist state will always require an enemy class – in the US - the 1%’s, the “Confederate Hillbillies” and “politically incorrect bigots;” in today’s Russia, it’s Americans, their “foreign agents” and, again, Jews; in Europe it’s Jews and Israel once again… And for the Muslims, it’s always Jews and Israel, even though most of them have no idea where Israel is. So, I should modify my statement above – an enemy is needed by all totalitarian regimes; it’s part of their DNA.

Neither ideological tenet (Anarchy or Totalitarianism) is judged good or evil on this spectrum. In practice, anarchy is chaos, because not all affected will agree with the premise that no government is needed. However, this placement at the opposite end from totalitarianism is based on the principle behind the proponents. Anarchists believe (as do most Utopian thinkers) that given absolute freedom, people will naturally do what is in their best interests. The fact that this is a highly unlikely outcome isn't part of their thinking. Totalitarians believe that individual freedom is dangerous, placing them in absolute opposition to anarchist thought.

The fact that this correlation escapes the average American and European bah-bah-bah voter is rather bizarre. I recently talked to an elderly Bernie Sanders supporter and presented her with the fact that both Sanders, the Nazis and the Soviets were socialists. Her reply - but Sanders is "a Democratic Socialist"! The bottom line is that some people want to escape any personal responsibility, any effort to think for themselves, so much that they are more than willing to head in the direction of the gas chamber, so long as the path looks beautiful.

Actually, I googled it, but couldn't they be Ukranian and Jewish?

People, in general, don't like to work, or at least prefer to minimize the effort. But even more than they dislike work, people do not like to think. The mental effort is often the most oppressive to many. Totalitarianism absolves the masses from this difficult task - everything is already thought out for them. For many, to be free from thinking is the ultimate freedom.

Lenin had a small Jewish part, Marx, Trotsky and Engels were Jews, but why are you saying that Brezhnev and Khrushchev were Jews? As far as I know, they were Ukrainians.

Gotcha. Only so much time.

Correction: fifth para should read: Companies can't exist without a workforce. Imagine how successful an HMO would be with MDs, RNs on down to customer reps NOT working for them?

Forgot to put back the not when editing :)

You're welcome and I thank you for being thought provoking :)

Thank you for the recommendation - have been very curious about these behaviors and coping mechanisms for a very long time.

And what do ISIS/ISIL and Bernie Sanders have in common?

Watch the video and draw your own conclusions.