Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Delivered by Joseph Stalin –
“A country which is surrounded by a capitalist world, is subject to the menace of foreign military attack, cannot therefore abstract itself from the international situation, and must have at its disposal a well-trained army, well-organized punitive organs, and a strong intelligence service consequently, must have its own state.”
Yes North Koreanization of USG would be an improvement.
Assuming he bothered to humor a transgender rights activist for a few minutes instead of having ‘it’ dragged away to a reeducation center, Chairman Mao would interrupt and ask “… what the fuck do these perverts have to do with COMMUNISM!?“.
These transvestite perverts have nothing to do with Communism, Chairman.
These perverts have to do with Comte, the founder of Sociology, Bureaucracy and what turned into Technocratic Progressivism.
Comte did not create the pussyhat.
What Comte did create is our real problem: Government of the Bureaucrats. Note that I include as members of the Bureaucratic/Technocratic class all of the institutions that are not directly part of the FedGov machinery, but which are always demanding FedGov (or Brussels for my European readers) be given more power to socially engineer the rest of us into oblivion –
It cannot be emphasized enough that history before 1932 is without precedent for an aristocracy of bureaucrats; Comte’s priesthood is a complete historical aberration.
The classes making up the Technocratic elite were more able than the proletariat, yet still only dull, gray, members of the bourgeois and upper classes. However numerous were the advantages Technocracy held over Communism thanks to drawing leadership from the bourgeois, these were overwhelmingly the mediocre or even failed portions of the bourgeoisie. They consist of sociologists, academics, scientists, pseudo-scientists, government bureaucrats, media hacks, ‘artists’, ‘experts’, celebrities, non-profit workers, quacks of every type, writers, philosophers, economists, environmentalists, feminists, public and private sector unions, and international organizations.
Little though they would agree about anything else, both Engels and conservatives of any type would agree that these elements of society were unfit to serve as a ruling class. Traditional conservative ruling classes were drawn from the aristocracy, military, priesthood, and merchant classes (the class that met Alexander Hamilton’s ideal of a ‘natural aristocracy’), and, to varying degrees of flexibility, with room made for admission into the elite of the occasional parvenu of great ability.
The leadership of Soviet Russia, as well, did not consist of Technocrats. Soviet rulers overwhelmingly came from the founding revolutionaries, the military high command, economic management, and intelligence agencies. As in Conservative systems, the Civil Service in Communist nations served a purely advisory role to the Communist elite.
In times past there have always been bureaucrats of some kind. But not until Comte was there any concept of Bureaucracy as a form of government.
A dictatorship of Bureaucrats (which is what the governments of Western Civilization have become) is necessarily a dictatorship of unsupervised and unaccountable Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats left unsupervised and unaccountable and who have had the mainstream crackpots of the Sociology departments indoctrinate them with the absurd notion started by Comte that Bureaucrats are royalty inevitably leads them to socially engineer every conceivable aspect of life, aspects that not even the Soviet Union thought for a moment should be regulated.
Almost two centuries after Comte, the professional Civil Service has now devolved to a point where it presumes a right to regulate gender; granting them legal jurisdiction over gender is as certain to be successful as their management of the Oroville dam.
The method in which General Flynn was taken down is a demonstration of how incompetent the Civil Service has become.
From an intelligence standpoint their toppling of Flynn was foolish.
Because the chain of ownership of the NSA’s wiretaps is traceable to specific personnel Trump is likely to catch many of the leakers. The Civil Service has wasted valuable assets within the NSA very early in the administration. If the payoff were high enough for the Civil Service, sacrificing NSA sympathizers might be worthwhile.
But was the gain worth the sacrifice?
They took down a gaffe-prone intelligence official who was more of a burden to Trump than a threat to the Progressives because that official held a diplomatic phone call about sanctions with Russia.
The correct course to take would have been to keep wiretapping Flynn while the sympathizers remained quiet, and wait for Flynn to make a more serious mistake.
This would be in keeping with the practice of Churchill who waited to act on the intelligence gathered from Britain’s decryption of Germany’s enigma code in order to save that breakthrough for more important military operations. Using the intercepts too early to, for example, warn British citizens when a German air raid was underway would have alerted the Germans to the fact enigma had been cracked.
Now the administration is alert not only to this incident, but will be watching for more mischief all while the administration is little damaged by this fiasco, Technocrat hysteria notwithstanding.
This ‘coup’ was just a clumsy belly flop into the diving pool. It earned applause from the Progressives because it splashed water everywhere, but as a coup it falls far short of an acceptable performance because it leaves nothing changed politically.
The lesson from this weak showing is, as we have argued before, is that the Civil Service is not capable of a coup; the personnel that could pull one are Republican leaning.
And I doubt, frankly, that even the Republican elements in the military, intelligence, and Federal law enforcement agencies have the experience anymore to accomplish it. Most of these officials heard about coups when they were fresh recruits or interns from stories told by old Cold Warriors such as George Schultz, Cap Weinberger, James Baker, Kissinger, and such.
Dealing with this hubbub about Flynn is easy.
I see many ways to keep spinning the Progressives news cycle after news cycle.
The hard part is not spin.
The real challenge is dismantling the Civil Service as an independent fourth branch of government, and afterwards reattaching it to the executive branch as a strictly subservient instrument of the executive.
The most decisive strategy would be to make all Federal Government workers at-will employees of the President except for judges, the military and Federal law enforcement.
If Republican Presidents could simply fire Liberal FedGov workers and replace them with Conservatives the Civil Service would have its political independence broken and the Progressive age well on its way to oblivion. Unlike the other three branches there are no Constitutional protections for government workers, this workforce can be molded and redesigned by Congress so long as it does not give the President power to reduce how much is spent on Federal workers without Congressional legislation (because it would run afoul of rulings against the Constitutionality of the line item veto).
To avoid running into the Constitutional issue of the line item veto and budget cuts made unilaterally by the President, the power of the President to fire government workers should be coupled with a requirement the President replace them at the same pay level with someone of his choosing, unless a Congressional budget resolution eliminates that position.
The problem is that firing Federal workers is made difficult by Progressive government regulations. Legally changing the Federal workforce to at-will employment will make for a fierce (but worthwhile) Congressional battle.
Short of this, there are other ways Trump can keep the Civil Service under control.
I mentioned North Korea earlier, I now return to that topic.
Trump should turn the Civil Servants against themselves by incentivizing them to spy and undermine each other while they search for workers disloyal to the Trump regime much as Stalin, Mao, North Korea, and most every Communist state encouraged its own people to spy for their regimes in the search for dissenters.
Trump can throw the FedGov Bureaucracy into a paranoid North Korean state of terror (who would object to that!) by learning from what is known in Game Theory as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
In our modified version of this well-studied strategic scenario, the FedGov managers of future leakers will be liable to be punished for the misbehavior of their workforce even if the managers did not approve of, or know about, the leaker’s actions in any way.
FedGov managers who do not conspire with their disobedient employees should face the following conditions:
- If a leaker is caught by investigators and the manager was unaware of the leaker’s actions, the leaker will be fired or suspended without pay while they wait to be prosecuted and the manager fired (or, if firing a Federal employee would prove difficult to justify in court, suspended without pay, demoted, or otherwise severely reprimanded)
- If a leaker is caught by investigators but the manager helped bring their misbehavior to the attention of their superiors, the leaker will be fired or suspended while they await trial and the manager will be rewarded with higher performance ratings, possibly be promoted.
- If a leaker turns himself in and the manager was unaware of the leaker’s actions, the leaker will be fired or suspended without pay but offered a less severe plea deal for turning themselves in, and the manager will be either fired or severely reprimanded.
- If the manager helps report the leaker before the leaker can turn himself in the leaker will be prosecuted as fiercely as if they had not cooperated with investigators and the manager will be rewarded with higher performance ratings, possibly be promoted.
Of course, if the manager did conspire they will be fired or suspended without pay while they await formal prosecution.
In this arrangement all FedGov managers are highly incentivized to act as spies for the Trump administration against any Progressive interference in Trump’s management of the executive.
I mentioned this is a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Most of you probably know what it is.
What few of you know is how difficult it is to keep the player in this game from defecting from cooperation with their co-prisoner (or, in our spin on this old game, ‘defection’ is managers turning in their employees or having the leaker confess).
The Prisoner’s Dilemma has been the subject of deep mathematical study by mathematicians no less than von Neumann and Nash, military strategists, economists, and criminologists.
All of them have found it very hard not to get one of the prisoners to confess because none of the prisoners have perfect information about the intentions of the other.
The incentive structure of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is inherently self-reinforcing, breaking that incentive structure is difficult because the setup of the risks and rewards along with imperfect information heavily favors defection.
In our scenario, the lack of information managers have about whether their employees will be caught or turn themselves in greatly incentivizes them to immediately take action against their employees. Simultaneously, any leaker considering whether to turn themselves in to get a lighter sentence will be as worried their supervisor will have already cooperated with investigators as they will be about the investigation itself.
An incentive structure that von Neumann himself found challenging to break is surely a fitting Maoist finger-trap to put on the fingers of our pussyhated Bureaucratic nobility.