Jerry Pournelle is generally credited with formulating the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
We are fond of calling this skin-suiting an institution, though we usually infer a more malignant intention behind such. There is no need to impute a conspiracy when the natural evolution of an institution adequately explains it’s internal decay. I can say that I have personally witnessed bureaucratic behavior in two of the more extreme forms it may ever have taken – the U.S. Department of Defense, and the organization surrounding that annual bacchanal, Burning Man. Contrary to expectation, the more sclerotic of the two isn’t necessarily the DoD, though it is by far the larger and more destructive. This also amply demonstrates that rigid bureaucracy is not simply the creation of a conservative mindset. When a bunch of drugged-up hippies end up building organizational structures that aren’t all that different from those that guide the national security apparatus – there’s something deeper in human behavior at play. Nor will this be limited to what exists in putatively capitalist systems, as Trotsky’s (and others) critiques of the Soviet Union will echo the dismay at the bureaucracies that dominated there.
First we need to establish some temporal considerations. Marx wrote in the mid 19th century (and was dead by 1883). The American Progressive movement had some of it’s earliest threads traced to the Civil War and thence into the Gilded Age. Progressivism was initially as Republican as it was Democratic in terms of partisan identity, then flamed out as it’s own partisan brand. In its initial glory, Progressivism never gave much thought to Marx or his acolytes. Outright Communism in the U.S. wasn’t significant until after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia (which nearly coincides with Progressivism being a spent force – for a time). Antonio Gramsci was a theorist who wrote around the time of the decline of Progressivism (which had been operating for decades) and contemporary with the Bolshevik revolution being declared a degenerated workers state by Trotsky and comrades. Progressivism would be re-invigorated by marriage with the New Left of the 60s/70s and it is possible that Gramsci had some following within those circles, but we’re kinda stretching to make him a relevant point of reference (and in particular a more relevant one than say Foucault or the Frankfurt school). Gramsci was a Marxist theorist and while theorists flourish in Marxist circles, all theory in Marxism tends to be pretty damn flawed – mostly because it insists on ignoring real humans and insisting instead on caricatured groups and idealized behavior. Gramsci actually was rather heterodox in his Marxism (and did take account of real humans and their interactions), which of course would not win him fans amongst the orthodox, though his ideas did gain purchase in other intellectual circles. By the way, if you want to read about splintering and factionalism – the history of Marxism/Communism and Socialism leaves the combined Right and Libertarian communities in the dust.
So while Gramsci may have provided a theoretical basis for “the long march through the institutions” because he argued that culture matters more than dialectical materialism, he never actually said it himself. It was a German leftist, Rudi Dutschke, of the 60s who is credited with it and is directly alluding to the Communist Chinese Long March (an event that happened after Gramsci’s death, so all but impossible for there to be a connection there). It seems hard to say that Dutschke had much influence on the American New Left of the same time period. That era was already a chaotic mess in this country (as irony would have James Burnham writing The Suicide of the West* in 1964 having migrated through quite a number of Leftist factions prior to WWII).
However, we can step back some years before the turbulent 60s and have a look at the insights from Burnham in The Managerial Revolution (and The Machiavellians) for the writing on the wall about Marxian theory (from a former Trotskyite to boot) and the death of classical capitalism as an economic, and the American republic as a political, system. Burnham’s observations are echoed by another Italian political theorist (and lapsed Communist), Bruno Rizzi, and Yvan Craipeau (an unreconstructed French Trotskyist). The key element Burnham focuses on is the disconnection of control from ownership, and that control was now residing in a class that did not own the businesses they were directing, but were easily associated with the professional bureaucracy in government. In my mind, even if they didn’t realize it, they’re describing fairly accurately the tenets of fascism wherein the interests of business are subordinated and coordinated with government (naturally enough through bureaucracies, the component that carries out policy). We’re all familiar with Taylorism (scientific management) in the late 19th century, and that thread carries through both in the private and (to a lesser extent) the public managerial systems. The New Deal (to a limited degree) and WWII (with a vastly larger impact) forged the concept of the public directing the private sphere – but in common terms and among a set of people that could operate in either. Eisenhower most notably warned of this in his military-industrial-complex, though that same speech carried warnings about other overlaps.
It is my contention that we can find all the fault in our current environment, economically and politically, in a largely native American line of decay; in terms of our Progressive (pre- and post- New Left) tradition, Burnham (et al) and of course my other touchstone – Christopher Lasch (who covers so well the nature of the elite class and its disconnect from the rest of society). We misdirect our diagnosis of what is wrong when we obsess on Communist infiltration and demoralization (for which Gramsci is given much credit). There is an organic process that explains this without the operation of a malignant force. The catch is you can’t build a mass movement without that demon – but I’m not particularly bothered by that.
[*] Jonah Goldberg would recycle this title, proving the guy is incapable of originality.
A lot to chew on, here. I think we can take it as read that any organization will eventually (and likely sooner rather than later) become focussed primarily on its own growth and internal dynamics/health. In the nonprofit world, this is justified with the facile “No margin, no mission”.
This certainly sets up a disconnect from whatever its original purpose was, and potentially, at least, creates a void. I think the question is, why was it leftism/progressivism that filled this void in America? Put another way, the self-interest of organizations drives mission creep – when the original mission is fulfilled, the organization isn’t going to declare victory and dissolve. Instead, it will expand its original mission or adopt a new one. So why have leftist/propgressive causes been the beneficiary of this kind of mission creep?
There is no waiting for the mission to be fulfilled ( that is irrelevant) the expansion of the organization is the goal from the beginning. The mission is always use the excuse and the true believers in the organization are just useful tools. I saw this repeatedly in the DoD and its contractors.
Because progs love organizing things.
I thought it was because they’re grifters and suck at real jobs.
Same thing
I’m not sure it really is progressive/left as much as it is PMC/fascist. Those attracted to the field/institution are those who are interested in control. Right now that bends left (progressive) but the right will surely learn. In the past, those who’s politics run right haven’t been interested in the function of control like the left has. The real disaster for us liberty types is that the right will exhibit the same intolerance as the left.
Right now that bends left (progressive)
And has for generations (with the possible exception of the brief and unlamented socons). I’m just wondering why. Is there something inherent in leftism that attracts and holds the controllers? Why hasn’t the pendulum swung back?
Is there something inherent in leftism that attracts and holds the controllers?
They’re collectivists? Individuals are just cogs in the machine. They need to be controlled to create the desired outcome.
I think we had a muddled middle for a long time, and we are exhibiting a bit of a tendency to project the current environment farther back than we probably should. Thirty or forty years ago, college administrations were stupid – but not nearly as stupid as they are now. Environmentalism went radical (and partisan Dem) in the late 80s; prior to that you had plenty of Sierra Club support for Republicans who were conservationist-environmentalists.
I’ve heard it argued (and it’s hard to disagree) that Fascism is the reaction to communion. If so, it shouldn’t be a surprise if some new-fangled fascism is the reaction to the globalist/socialists trying to take over.
Maybe Russia and Hungary to a lesser extend are already the model for the new semi-fascist resistance. Which is why the globalists are so adamant about escalating the proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine.
Going back to Spengler, and some others around the same time, you had the idea that democracy was inevitably degenerate, and fascism was the ‘logical’ successor. I think they were more right than we care to admit, and the PMC is the prime facilitator of that – it’s just been a bloodless, slow-moving coup.
The left is driven by a religious fervor that pays off in this life instead of the next.
I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t spoiler my next post, kinnath.
I didn’t get a chance to read your post last night. I need to go back to it.
As for the future post, ooops.
Except that is never pays off, even in this life. I love this article, can’t wait for more. Must get back to work today or I would comment more.
Except that is never pays off, even in this life.
If that were true, it would disappear.
That fact that the left sustains forever indicates there is a payoff somewhere.
That’s the smart trick of religion – you don’t get your payoff where you can talk about it.
Except that is never pays off, even in this life.
The promised utopia never arrives, true. But there are payoffs, for the troo bleevers. As JI notes, there are jobs to be had. But there is also a psychic payoff for being on the side of the right and good and true, and being opposed to the forces of darkness (both, as they see it).
The big payoff is no different than the Protestant Work Ethic; that you are making money off of the dream shows that you are one of the faithful.
Except that is never pays off, even in this life.
It pays off for them; they’re grifters, after all. For normal people, not so much.
There ain’t no end to doing good.
That said, on the right, the churches which are relatively permanent institutions were and are responsible for a lot of the organizing behavior. On the left, the NGOs, the bureaucracies, etc… are the equivalent. It becomes an end unto itself without the higher purpose.
Scruffy, said much more succinctly than I below.
A parasite.
There is always a parasitic class in any human society. It is a sign of our prosperity that we have such a huge one.
MADD is a good example. Lightner, the founder, resigned when the org accomplished her original goals, but they continue on as a prohibition org.
We’re all familiar with Taylorism
I’m not.
Frederick Taylor – the father of scientific management.
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.htm
Highly referenced in Zamyatin’s We, which is considered the godfather of all 20th century dystopian fiction.
*points and laughs*
j/k
I only heard about it in law school. Can’t even remember which class. It was an industrial efficiency program, which broke down processes into smaller tasks, which were then optimized. Pretty much the forerunner to the assembly line. Downside for the workers was that they would have only one thing to do; rather than working a process with multiple tasks, they would be given a single, highly repetitive, task.
Thanks Juris and RC, I guess I am familiar with it I just didn’t know what it was called.
Also good write up J, although I may only be saying that because I agree with your contention.
Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.
I tend to agree also that there is a baseline “organic” drive(?) in organizations which creates opportunities for the organization to be redirected. Why the redirection has bent left in America is still not clear to me.
Meant to add: I’ve worked in a “Lean” organization, and you can absolutely see the Taylorism DNA at work.
Yeah, Taylor’s precepts are familiar even if you don’t know the name.
Had to study his writings for my MPA. Imagine government workers thinking they can apply that to state run entities..
I suppose it could be done, but the tasks and metrics would have to be meaningful and good luck dragging that out of bureaucracy/politics.
In my experience working for the fedgov, I can only imagine you’ll have better luck finding meaningful metrics in a Pauley Shore movie. No disrespect to Mr. Shore.
I thought it was this.
*shrug*
Seconded.
*finds an additional engine*
Taylor: a machinist by trade that sought to create greater efficiency within large systems through small incentives towards those within the system.
He was less of a clown than Weber.
Very interesting and that’s why the next administration will be worse than the present one.
I witnessed that in the company I worked for, I thought my goal was to make money. I was labeled as a not “Team Player”, a loose cannon. I didn’t have an assistant or an office while all of my counterparts did.
My boss asked why I didn’t have one of those long ago telephone reminders, I forget what they are called. My answer was that I didn’t want to be bothered when I was on the road, if it was important they could catch me at at my next stop. I always kept the employees informed as to where I would be working on daily basis.
We misdirect our diagnosis of what is wrong when we obsess on Communist infiltration and demoralization
Aren’t the dumb commies simply the shock-troops for the elite? They are sold on this idea of revolution, form their little committees, take over institutions and never actually benefit. Kind of like the idiots pushing ESG and other globalist horseshit.
Thanks, JI. This is a good one!
That’s why I think the DoD bureaucracy is a very relevant reference. Honest-to-god progressives are rare enough and real spies are despised.
Honest-to-god progressives are rare enough
Honest question: Are they, still?
Yes (AFAICT), because at their core, they don’t want anything to do with national security – that’s icky. It just doesn’t attract them. Now, that said, the bureaucratic system still manages to promote those who serve the bureaucracy over the mission – so you are still getting the dysfunction.
Communist revolutions have always been spearheaded by the bourgeoisie. The proletariats are just cannon fodder.
Excellent article, a lot to think about here.
Thanks JI.
Similar to last night’s constitution discussion, I think a majority of the population likes to belong and be told what to do. A bureaucracy (the way or the system) allows one to do both and feel good about the process. I’m reminded of the IBM, GE, and RCA way of doing things. The good thing about the for profit companies was if their way didn’t work anymore the company had to change or go away. RCA was a bloated mess and couldn’t change when it’s core businesses were challenged, GE bought it and picked apart the bones and kept the meat. The rest was sold to companies that could use what remained or liquidated. GE followed their “way” and it worked until it didn’t. They created value even in death.
This process doesn’t happen with non-profits or governments, so if their “way isn’t working, if their cause is no longer a valid one, or if they succeeded in what they set out to do, they don’t need to change or go away. The bureaucracy and infrastructure is still in place and jobs need to be kept, so it continues to a new cause, regulation, or set of goals. There is no correction possible because they only need to keep getting funded. Unfortunately funding is everywhere in a rich country. So the bad and good and in between can be funded if they offer belonging and or a sense of security that there are the smart ones at the top who know better and will take care of them and the rest of the world.
No one here is capable of running the country (state, or company) alone, but we all are capable of running our own lives. Until we get back to that attitude as a country we will be lost.
There is no correction possible because they only need to keep getting funded.
Non-profits are subject to market forces just as for-profits are, its just that the non-profit market is not only the one for goods and services, it is also the one for grants and fundraising. The notable exception might be non-profits that are effectively quasi-governmental, in that they get their funding from governments to do stuff governments want done.
Many non-profits go under; the health care industry goes through periodic spates of non-profit hospitals and healthcare systems failing financially and being acquired by non-profits or for profits, or liquidated. And roughly half of their income is from government payors like Medicare and Medicaid.
RC thanks for the correction. My brush was too broad. I was referring more specifically to NGO’s and institutions of higher learning.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Our brains are generally constructed as to be able to process and act upon a limited amount of information and keep it organized. Our bodies have only so much gas and strength to do a few of those things the brain says to do. There is only so much time to think/do these things. Most of human history has been spent in the pursuit of mere survival.
We can’t all be Thoreau, going out into the woods, going out (on daddy’s money) (with mommy doing his laundry and cooking his food).
Therefore, with the exception of the 10 Commandments, rules are constructed through hard experience (I mean, you could CALL them suggestions, but life is going to kick your ass). There is no point in reinventing the wheel, and most people are conditioned to follow rules so they don’t have to think any harder than they must to survive (and now, in today’s age, thrive).
rules are constructed through hard experience
Some are (in law, these are “common law”, in other areas these are more “tradition”). Some aren’t (notably, government diktats and whatever is fashionable in the corporate world).
Mojeaux, I was referring to liking being taken care of in all aspects of life. Not having to think or being able to try it your way. If everyone was like that we would never improve. In a small group like a family it is a given that that being taken care of can be a good thing.
In other aspect of life, like running your own business, building your house, or figuring out how to live your life as you believe is best; guidelines and best practices from others are a good place to start. If you are not allowed to go beyond these guidelines, but in fact they are regulations and laws, then there will be a limit to creative improvement in the world.
Oh, I agree with you. However, I do think that as independent cusses, the bunch of us generally scoff at “rules” because they are innumerable and redundant and pedantic.
I think once mankind got out of survival mode, people learned how to be dependent and wanting to be taken care of. People pre-industrial revolution were less willing to coddle those who wouldn’t take care of themselves. Churches would, but even they had limited resources. Nobody grew up knowing they could go to the government to take care of their whole entire lives.
Agreed, dependency was a slow creep. More and more is done by the local state and Fed governments each year to “take care” of those who would have been supported by their families in the past if possible. The family would adopt a family member or friend who would clean up the house, help here and there, but mainly have a free place to stay and a plate of food at each meal. In the 20th century those who were not able to take care of themselves and lacked a family willing or able were institutionalized. Later on they were put into government programs, subsidized, and housed. This dependency feeds itself and keeps those votes coming.
Now that we have the unwilling along side of the unable being supported and subsidized, we have perpetuated victimhood.
In my research for my pirate book, one thing stuck out to me in colonial times was that, say, a family could not be related at all. So, for example, a dude with kids, whose wife had died, would marry a second woman. The second wife had kids by said dude, but dude dies. Now she’s got her stepkids and her own kids. She marries another dude who has no relation to these kids at all. The woman dies. Dude’s stuck taking care of kids who aren’t his, but he does it. Then he marries another woman. Add in however many sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, whatever. So here’s this dude and his wife who don’t have any relation to these kids whatsoever, they have an enormous extended family by way of those kids, and boom, you have a family that’s not related by blood, but is still a family.
Ship of Theseus.
“ ‘likes to … be told what to do’
This is not necessarily a bad thing. ”
Ugh. This makes the fur on my neck stand up.
Reminds me of Rick Santorum (2006 interview with NPR):
He dismissed libertarianism as “this whole idea of personal autonomy, … this idea that people should be left alone.”
As much as I dislike it, I can’t dismiss the truth that in a bell curve distribution of humans, we Glibs are out on a tail.
Venkatesh Rao’s Gervais Principle, which posits that there are three main languages spoken in large organizations. The language of sociopaths, of the clueless, and of losers. Losers are the rank and file, who carry out the organizations mission. Losers are not losers in the common usage of the word, but are those who are not invested in the mission. Their motivation is purely transactional, though they can be kept interested enough through various organizational schema. The clueless are the ones who fully invest themselves into the mission. They are the aspirational classes, who buy into the schema fully and are usually the ones who enforce its rules. The clueless make very good middle managers, but not great leaders. Leadership requires the ability to inspire, to create these schemata out of whole cloth. And that requires the use of sociopathic language.
Now, I really dislike his terms, as they tend to put people off of what is a rather good observation, but for lack of better ones, this should help look at humanity.
That fist para was cut and past, but whatever.
“Leadership requires the ability to inspire, to create these schemata out of whole cloth.”
Yes.
“And that requires the use of sociopathic language.”
No.
Like I said, his terms put people off.
And I keep forgetting to link the damn thing:
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/
I thought it was obvious I was talking about the scarcity of intellectual, physical, and temporal resources.
I get it, and it’s true that we individuals don’t have the time/ability to acquire all the facts before making each of the hundreds of daily decisions we make, so a lot of times going with social conventions or rules saves time and by-and-large gets us the “right” answer.
(Sometimes it doesn’t, like when people queue up and see one really long line and one short one, there’s this tendency to think the short one is too good to be true, so they get in the long one and thus waste a lot of time for nothing.)
But the downside of the human instinct to follow others is that it can be easily exploited by fucks like Obama, progressives, bureaucrats, LEOs, commies, etc to make us clamor for their “leadership” and restrictions.
Fuck that. I will decide on which risks to take.
It fits with a thing I read yesterday, where the author complained that sure the FDA gives us ‘guidance’ on nutrition, but it is still on us to decide/act, and that seemed to him to be a problem. Why should we have to decide to do what is beneficial for ourselves?
I think I heard something recently like that as well.
When do I get my government funded dietician? I dunno what to eat, and your can’t expect me to figure it out.
Also, who will be chewing my food for me?
If it was my kid that wrote that, I’d chew his ass out from here to next week. And honestly, what fucking editor just lets that fly?
Well, that would have been Adam Conovers new Netflix show, produced by and costarring Barack Obama. So that explains the patronizing “you cant be trusted to make decisions for yourself” smarminess.
jobs need to be kept
This cannot be overstated, particularly in govt (again reference DoD). I had a gig where I asked the PM why our shop still existed, we had done what our program plan had called for and the logical thing was to close up the shop. He couldn’t grok that. He had an office and staff – there must be something we should do.
There is something – close up the office.
He had a not unadmirable motive – he was concerned for the people working for him, that they have jobs. Didn’t really matter if the jobs were doing something necessary.
A little over a decade ago, the Calgary, Alberta, Canada chapter of Planned Parenthood did something that I never thought I’d see in my lifetime — they voluntarily dissolved their chapter after a time of internal organizational reflection on whether they had substantially achieved their original objectives.
Whatever you think about PP, I was damned impressed by this, and I don’t believe I’ll ever see something like it again in my remaining time on Earth.
I’m blanking now but there was a conservative foundation that liquidated itself over something like twenty years as the founders intent.
A fine example of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy is the March of Dimes. Originally organized with the sole purpose of eradicating polio, once the goal was achieved, it simply changed focus and continued on.
So…the Long March of Dimes?
That is a winner Hayek.
I think there’s a lot to this, and it is the dragon’s egg of corporate capitalism, which undoubtedly enabled the accumulation, application, and redirection of capital with unprecedented effectiveness, but also disconnected ownership from control.
For an extra All-American twist, the managerial class (with its own consciousness and agenda) now includes not only the private and public bureaucrats, but also academia.
Thanks for writing! Between JI and RC I’m learning a lot this week.
This is twice he and I have written independently and been eerily similar. I’m starting to wonder about one of us. 😉
I just figute you both got the same software update to you sockpuppet programming.
We are all Tulpa. It seems that Tundra, Swiss, Sloopy and I have almost identical taste in music.
Very good article JI. I enjoyed reading it. Some devil’s advocate points below.
We are fond of calling this skin-suiting an institution, though we usually infer a more malignant intention behind such. There is no need to impute a conspiracy when the natural evolution of an institution adequately explains it’s internal decay.
…
We misdirect our diagnosis of what is wrong when we obsess on Communist infiltration and demoralization (for which Gramsci is given much credit). There is an organic process that explains this without the operation of a malignant force.
Certainly many organizations go through a natural decay cycle. I find it difficult to believe though that there aren’t individuals out there who are capable, powerful, and have goals counter to my interests. You (and I) see them as a malignant force, but they certainly don’t see themselves this way. This would be the first time in human history that such individuals don’t exist.
People naturally organize into groups, especially where money and power is available. A single shadowy puppet master dictating human affairs is absurd to believe. Competing groups shaping national and global events based on their own rational interests (which are not my interests) is pretty much a primer on human history but for some reason becomes a tinfoil conspiracy theory in today’s modern age. Sun Tzu could hardly be considered a conspiracy theorist:
Forgot about Marxism and go back to rational interests of other actors. The CCP would following Sun Tzu’s playbook to the letter if they are behind funding AGW and CRT. Nations have also always waged war by means that include other avenues than the battlefield and diplomacy, and a hostile actor could not have picked a better approach to bringing down the United States than encouraging the strife and division that is currently unfolding here.
I’m sure both the Russians and Chinese experience profound joy arising out of our innate nonsense. After all, we’ve done the same with respect to others. We’ve also taken active roles in the affairs of other countries, and we will do so again in the future. We forget now that up until WWI, there was considerable anti-British sentiment in this country. FDR royally fucked the Brits while they were fighting the Germans and we were on the sidelines; FDR would fuck us all with his miscalculations regarding Stalin. Our “containment” policy post WWII was not exactly some benign, peaceful rapproachment with our erstwhile former ally either.
The blind spot in all human ambition is to assume the beneficence of one’s own motives/actions. The proverbial road to hell…
I’m sure both the Russians and Chinese experience profound joy arising out of our innate nonsense. After all, we’ve done the same with respect to others. We’ve also taken active roles in the affairs of other countries, and we will do so again in the future.
But if it’s such a benefit to the Russians and Chinese and we’ve done the same to others, why wouldn’t the others do the same to us? That is exactly what a rational actor would do in their own best interest. We don’t have to assume beneficence of other’s motives, but we can assume others generally act rationally in their own interests and their interests may harm me. I think this a major blindspot for libertarians. I read constantly about the stupid politicians not seeing that the consequences of their actions will harm the citizens (rising gas prices for example). It entirely misses the point that harming the citizens may be actually be the politicians’ goal and that they are acting rationally in their own interest.
We know that at least one malignant force exists and that this isn’t all organic. One proof of such an existence is the $500k anonymous payments to Hunter Biden. We may not know exactly what these payment are for or the source, but it’s obviously not run of the mill lobbying by a corporation for a regulation exemption.
A good point about perverse incentives. My comment on taking pleasure in other’s misery isn’t that we need take part in creating it. We have in fact created misery presumably pursuing our national interests. I could write quite a bit about our pre- and post- Wilson ideas and actions. Yet we don’t really seem to revel in that, instead, we are bewildered that our good intentions did not yield the presumed good results.
Good example of reasoning from A to B but not from B to C. Some Iron Law or other gets in the way…
One of the things that has always struck me vis-à-vis drugs and the southern border, is how similar it is to the Opium Wars in China that Britain, in some form or another, initiated.
Not sure I get your thesis.
Communist Boogeymen aren’t needed because this is just what bureaucracies do?
But then that doesn’t explain the preference for even far leftist ideas within the bureaucracy.
DoD is hardly suffused with leftist ideas, and it is as good an example of ‘broken’ bureaucracy as you can ask for.
‘DoD is hardly suffused with leftist ideas,’
I’m not so sure. I have seen running total of numbers of employees broken down by race, gender and disability and pay grade. How we weren’t hitting our targets, etc. That doesn’t seem very moderate, or else we’re even more fucked than I think.
Did you see that last Administration? No. So the only thing you are seeing is the veneer that the current political control lays over the permanent organization. This is where some of the ideas about the Deep State are right – it exists, it isn’t accountable and mostly, it wants to continue day to day without any bother. That’s terribly conservative in a pretty classic sense. It highly values the status quo and very, very incremental change.
After working 20 years on DoD contracts, albeit as a contractor who had to compete (so we were still highly motivated to be nimble, responsive to customer, and efficient), I gotta say that these past 8 months in Dept of Energy have COMPLETELY redefined what bureaucracy is.
Holy cow. When there’s only one game in town, standards fall fast. Fortunately some of us actually believe in the mission so we can kind of move forward despite the dead weight. We just have to network and identify one another so we can get things done.
Pretty sure Hobbit can back me up on this, but even back in the 80s, my parents and pretty much everyone else at LANL cringed or despaired whenever DOE got involved with literally anything and the attitude has, anecdotally, gotten infinitely worse since.
JI, I believe it was during the previous administration, but I no longer have access to the information to confirm. At any rate they always collected such info, for the expressed purpose of making sure we get ‘enough’ of each ‘kind’ of person. That’s been going on for a long time, maybe they were more open about it during the past year and a half, but I think it was well established before then.
I agree that bureaucracy is typically sclerotic and self perpetuating, and thus should be’conservative’ in the technical sense. However you often see the latest leftist jargon adopted (equity became very popular, before Biden assumed control) quite quickly. Sustainable, energy efficient, etc. Were all in vogue during that time.
Well, look at who populates those bureaucracies and where they were educated. There is a long term trend, but much of that is quite innate to bad American ideas, not foreign infiltration. [Sadly kbolino is absent or he would surely pipe up about Mann importing the Prussian school model (even if he didn’t import all of the baggage).]
Groupthink is scarily powerful – challenging it can lead to questioning if not expulsion from the group.
I guess I am ending up in an in-between point between you and what I assume to be kbolino’s thesis that it is probably a combination of both factors. Foreign agents are not required at all of course, but often do serve to reinforce that leftward drift based on the false premise that Europeans are more cultured and have solved issues we haven’t.
I get this often on things specific to my job, which isn’t political in nature at all, but more technical.
To add to what JI has been saying, one of the things that gets missed in all of this but is very important regarding the leftist bent of these organizations, is that the US as a whole has been on a leftward trend for the last 50 odd years. Groups like the DOD are tailing indicators, certainly not leading indicators, with is where the tech companies have been on this. Gov’t institutions are slow, sclerotic, and will always be behind the times. That they are just now seeming to pick up on these silly terms is a sign of just how fixed in their ways they are, as this has been the norm at a certain level for a couple decades now, starting with industries closely tied to the Ivy Leagues, such as law.
50? I think an argument can be made that the shift began with the end of WW2 and accelerated through the 50s and early/mid-60s, to the late 60s eruptions.
Women in the workforce, doing “men’s jobs.”
Increasing visibility of blacks and the feet on their necks.
The disconnected youth of the post-war years, who had, as Joan Didion puts it, never been taught how to be adults. [very bad paraphrase]
If not leftward trends in and of themselves, certainly these were not areas the Right was interested in addressing in a meaningful way, and thus were fertile grounds for the growth of ‘the new left’.
It wasn’t that they were in the workforce doing “men’s jobs,” per se. It was that they were drafted into the workforce while the men went off to war, then when the men came back, were patted on the head, told “good girl, now go back to the kitchen and submit to your husband. We don’t need you anymore.” So you have a full generation of women who now know something different from what they were reared to be, and resented having to go back to it after having had a measure of independence, financial and otherwise. It’s going to foment resentment and bitterness.
Mojeaux — well, yes. In a culture of “men’s jobs” that’s what happens when the men return from war.
That so many of the men were damaged in one form or another, to one extent or another, coupled with the resentment of the patronized and dismissed women, well, there’s why we had a generation raised not knowing how to be adults.
“ ‘likes to … be told what to do’
This is not necessarily a bad thing. ”
Ugh. This makes the fur on my neck stand up.
Reminds me of Rick Santorum (2006 interview with NPR):
He dismissed libertarianism as “this whole idea of personal autonomy, … this idea that people should be left alone.”
Squirrels?? This was supposed to be a reply to Mojeaux above.
OT: Mpls had a rough night, too.
The videos are insane.
Seems like somebody shooting explosives at your home would justify armed self-defense, no?
Lol. Those condos are packed full of proggies. I’ll bet you have more firearms in your house than that entire building combined.
But yes. Particularly when the cops take 2 hours to show.
My brother tells me that local media is burying the shit out of these stories.
Maybe I’m conflating the two events, but it looked like there was return fire in some of those videos.
Not sure. There were a ton of different scenes, I guess.
My brother tells me that local media is burying the shit out of these stories.
With such an explosive story, I wonder why. . .
Absolutely, fireworks are just little rockets.
A buddy of mine in the Canadian Forces Reserves liked to remind me that the only real difference between fireworks and anti-personnel munitions was where each was aimed.
o.O
Thats insane!
Heh.
That’s hilarious. Did he do that on purpose? Maybe wear some clothes next time.
A lot to unpack, but a great read, thanks jI!
There is an organic process that explains this without the operation of a malignant force.
The malignant force may not be required, but it’s definitely not precluded. What bothers me is how quickly you get down to an authoritarian leftist group (usually a non-profit or NGO) when you start scratching away at the facade of whatever captured institution you are inspecting. Bureaucracy is essentially stagnant. The impetus to grow and change and accumulate power is, almost always, instigated from the outside. Perhaps those requests are going through a purely administrative filter within the bureaucracy. Maybe there is an ideological sieve. It doesn’t really matter when the cloud of invested parties around the bureaucracy is captured ideologically.
I think that’s where Burnham’s PMC comes in – that class is formed by it’s forebears, and it’s education. Then it moves into management not on the basis of any practical knowledge, and proceeds to move up that system (private or public) based on internal class constructs, not the merits as we might think of them. Once the first wave arrives at the top, they self replicate.
Thanks for putting my thoughts into a post, Trashy. I’ll admit, during the original discussion I was on team kbolino, but JI has made a good point about self perpetuating bureaucracies. However, it’s not entirely clear that it’s only one or the other. Could be both.
Sorry to keep doing this, but here’s what happens when you push too far.
Scroll down for some wild footage from Sri Lanka.
Turns out people prefer food and energy to ESG and WEF.
How much of this stuff was happening in 2006-2007? Late 1970s? This feels rather, erm, unique.
Rioting and looting in the 60s. Bombings in the 70s.
We are experiencing disorganized (or semi-organized) crimes against businesses now. The organized campaign of violence against “the establishment” comes next.
The difference this time is that the powers-that-be are cheering this on and not prosecuting the offenders.
Oh, and the powers-that-be are prosecuting the victims that try to defend themselves.
The difference this time is that the powers-that-be are cheering this on and not prosecuting the offenders.
I’m also not convinced that TPTB aren’t providing support and instruction to some of the offenders. Maybe not the average looter, but I think some of the intimidation violence is astroturfed.
I’m also not convinced that TPTB aren’t providing support and instruction to some of the offenders.
I have no doubt that high-rollers are pulling the strings on much of the violence that we have seen in the last couple of years. Those same high-rollers have direct influence over the prosecutors that are not prosecuting.
Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates.
Likely the worst ones are completely unknown to us.
I think it’s also possible that those are all “front men” and there really isn’t one organizing central authority. That is that all of them have bought into the same intellectual models and create institutions that fit the underlying zeitgeist. So, you end up with a network of “Mr. Bigs”.
They are all members of the same fraternity. Same goals.
Agreed; I don’t think we have S.P.E.C.T.R.E. In a volcano lair someplace, but we have a bunch of folks with vast financial resources and a common view that a planned future that they control is the End that justifies all means.
Of course, they each privately imagine they will be calling the shots in the end and not be subjected to anyone else’s domination.
Funny how it’s always about population control, isn’t it?
Population Control is the elites’ way of getting their sociopathy on. They want to be mass murderers and still get invited to the cocktail parties.
Soros funded AG coming to a town near you
Yeah, when those ideas (astroturfed protests, rather than spontaneous) I thought the idea was a little conspiracy theory kuckoo.
But now there’s sufficient evidence of central planning AND funding that I have to lend at least some of it credence. For example, “someone” really did provide pallets of bricks conveniently lying around Minneapolis on the verge of controversial court verdicts, BLM events, etc.
And preprinted signs in the hands of protestors are a dead giveaway.
Near identical language in interviews, articles, social media posts.
The Las Vegas shooting and hush up still smacks of a multi-party plan gone wrong, rather than lone nutter, but that might be tin foil hat territory.
Problem is, when the authorities have been caught repeatedly in bald faced lies, the credibility of authority across the board is damaged.
Félicien Kabuga was the richest man in Rwanda in 1993, and had half a million machetes imported into the country shortly before the 1994 genocide. Many of those machetes were used in the genocide, Kabuga was caught and arrested a couple of years ago. But they’ve dropped any criminal charges related to the machetes – because how do you prove that the machetes weren’t meant for legitimate agricultural purposes? And I’m sure anybody pointing out and worrying about the sudden increase in imported machetes in 1993 would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
Oh, but that’s Africa. We’re so much more civilized here. Nobody would *ever* have a similar idea of using bricks to arm protesters. Nope, that’s impossible.
They say that every day is just another rotten mess and when it’s gonna change my friend is anybody’s guess.
I think this happens periodically around the world when prices go up. Now the cause for the price increases…
Look, to bring about the new liberal order we’re all going to have to make sacrifices. And by “we”, we mean “you”. Especially if you’re poor.
It is good to see the anger in many places all pointing in the right direction. And trashy, this does seem a bit different to me, too.
It’s all those damned kulaks and wreckers again.
Good to see some countries aren’t lying about that.
Anyone think the US isn’t at or close to that? At least for certain very common goods.
Given that many households were already living paycheck-to-paycheck prior to Biden admin decrees (Covid started it, but climate hysteria has snatched the baton) putting inflation on steroids, there must be thousands of households losing homes, cars, etc.
That does not bode well for society; people are getting desperate.
Do the people who wanted to burn it all down and remake society have any regrets or doubts?
I can’t imagine they do. They are all in a position where they won’t feel any of the consequences. You have Biden, who probably hasn’t pumped gas in decades, saying he feels your pain at the pump. And you have globalists jetting to Davos in private planes to talk about how everyone else will have to make sacrifices.
climate hysteria has snatched the baton
As was planned in late 2020/early 2021. Remember CNN creaming their pants over using the same blueprint as Covid on climate change?
Progressivism’s first trial run was the French Revolution. After the horror of the Reign of Terror, those kinds of stupid ideas were oppressed for decades.
That was a big influence on the Bolsheviks, to absolutely no one’s surprise. As I said though, if you want a real education in splitting and faction, studying the ebbs and flows of communist/socialist groups is your master class.
Metternich did nothing wrong.
if you want to read about splintering and factionalism – the history of Marxism/Communism and Socialism
There’s an ice pick joke in there dying to be chipped out.
Trotsky finally got what he deserved, considering his ‘service’ to the Bolshevik cause.
Isn’t Taylor innocent in a way that others are not? Industrial efficiency is just a tool….like a hammer: it says nothing about Taylor when his hammer is used to drive an illicit nail. Or, if we prefer: Taylor is just as useful (more?) to capitalists as he is to leftist or institutions that are headed left. Taylor is the FN-FAL of theorists: an practical mechanism used by soldiers of every stripe.
I’d say, yes and no. Yes, in some ways it’s a useful tool that doesn’t inherently need to be applied universally (like a hammer). The problem is Taylor himself was an advocate of its broad application. And, of course, none of this goes into the inherent flaws of Taylorism (observation effects behavior; a momentary observation of behavior doesn’t necessarily reflect vast repetitions of the behavior, etc.)
observation effects behavior
Hang on: Taylor makes this argument himself
Taylor gets smeared by the result of what others did with it. Just like Marx is with Marxism.
I have a friend who rants against MBO. I can’t help it that his managers don’t know how to use it, don’t align the metrics and goals, and have no nuance as to interpreting results. I mean, if you think atomic weight is valence, you’re going to make very bad calculations.
Well I was all ready to write something regarding Progressivism-as-religion, but as I see upthread that RC jumped on kinnath for just that, I’ll just wait…
JI – I’ll just suggest that your article and disputation with kbolino is the perfect case of “porque non los dos?”
IOW, just because you can point to an organic reason for these ideas doesn’t negate kbolino’s claim about the march through institutions.
TL/DR; There isn’t an excluded middle between your two positions.
In fact, after reading what you wrote, the first thing that popped into my head was that the organic tendency for bureaucracies to do this might well explain the Left-ward slant that we see in these institutions that others have pointed to. The Progs know full-well this tendency and so they exploit the shit out of it. And the bureaucracy, being what it is and having that natural tendency to sclerosis and control simply for control’s sake, is why we see this “long slow march.”
It’s a combination of individual humans pushing it that way, COMBINED with the bureaucracy’s own nature.
A herd of cattle in and around the institution. A handful of rustlers guiding the herd to their own gain.
You might want to invest a little more effort in the critiques from the left about the bureaucratization of the workers’ paradises. My point is this is a deeper human thing – such that it has befuddled the theorists of the left as much as it bedevils us. If the left was truly about using this as a weapon, it has certainly boomeranged on them.
To be fair, it might be useful to differentiate leftists and progressives (much as libertarians insist its necessary to differentiate libertarianism from the right) for your purposes.
Well leftists and progressives were two very distinct species prior to WWII. The fusion came in the 60s/70s with the New Left. So it is harder to tease apart now here than when we are talking of outside the U.S. or prior to the war.
The Progs know full-well this tendency and so they exploit the shit out of it.
But, would they even need to? The natural ideology of any bureaucracy is going to be technocratic centralization. In practice, it’s hard for me to think of how that ideology would be substantively different from progressivism.
Good article.
My mind has been trending on these sort of topics for the last few months. As I start to look at them, I’m beginning to wonder if some of the keys to putting things together aren’t with the pre-Buckleyan “Old Right”. A lot of them seem like they might have had at least a proto-libertarian streak to them. And one of the characterizations I hear about their thinking is that they objected to the rise of the managerial welfare-warfare state. And, if you think about it, progressivism seems ideally suited to a managerial class (what the Yugoslav communist Milovan Djilas later labeled “The New Class” – which lends credence to your thinking that the issue isn’t one of communist subversion a la Gramsci) in such a society. The underlying model is to manage the public in such a way as to render them effective tools for the functioning of the managerial system, with management largely insulated from the downsides of any errors.
I think the rise of Donald Trump was a visceral reaction on the part of the public with something fundamentally wrong with the Managerial State and Society. And I think it’s something very important, even if Trump and the Trump supporters didn’t have the entire thing thought out. I believe some sort of libertarianism is going to be part of the answer. But, I’m not sure it’s, in and of itself, enough.
1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest
I’ve seen #2 in big businesses, churches, and social organizations.
#3 explains the Biden Administration in general.
The big question about #2 is Why?
My answer: Because people are inherently depraved, and one big way that shows up is the desire to exert power over others. They want to rule. They think they know best. They of course are perfect in their own minds so everything wrong must be that somebody else is at fault, and must be forced to comply. They covet and steal because their own desires are paramount. But it all starts with “inherently depraved”, and their insistence otherwise.
To provide the same answer as Pine_Tree, but from a different perspective, it’s a power imbalance issue.
When was the last time you joined a group or institution or project, decided it sucked, and decided to stick around to reform it in your own image? I think the average person’s reaction is to cut their losses and run.
Control freaks and drama queens don’t have that reaction. They stick around and start making noise. They stir up trouble and accumulate power. Then they remake the group in their own image. Is it any surprise that the control freaks and drama queens tend to be aligned with the ideology of institutional control and manufactured drama?
We got us a genuine Calvinist!
Yep.
Is your avatar a Calvinist dog?
https://babylonbee.com/news/calvinist-dog-corrects-owner-no-one-good-boy
No, he’s plainly an Arminian, as he thinks that he chose us.
He was a stray ditch dog that actually broke into our fence to hang out with our other dog. Turned out to be extremely good-natured. Gave him to Dad, and then took him back when Dad died last year. His eyes don’t really do the odd glowie thing, though that would be cool.
I was wondering the same. Collectivists like to run organizations (corollary to the Iron Law)?
“Leave me alone” conservativism / libertarianism is a completely inadequate resistance? (Is fascism the only defense that works?)
The weakness of individualism is it doesn’t organize whereas collectivists are all about that?
Heh – Normal people think it is in bad taste to discuss politics and religion in public. Leftists aren’t normal.
*helicopter noises in the distance*
“3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.”
I’ve heard this one before, but was always a bit confused by the syntax. Is the Cabal an enemy of the organization or are they my “the reader’s” enemies?
The people running the organization are explicitly opposed to the goals of the organization.
I’ve never liked the way he phrased #3. I think he really meant to refer to its behavior relative to its stated mission, and at the same time assumed the listeners would get that he was talking about after the org’s fall. Just a little unclear.
That is how I interpreted it, but it is worded poorly.
The FBI investigating the loop on a garage door instead of BLM, Antifa, or Hunter Biden comes to mind.
We had a big gathering for the 4th this weekend.
My youngest granddaughter used to be cute as a button, constantly wearing kitten ears where ever she went.
Now, she is an overweight, pimply-faced teen with a butch haircut and a gender-fluid t-shirt. I hope she survives into her mid-20s without severe damage to her personality.
Jesse being Jesse.
Not supposed to be a reply, but I will now: she’s gotta be in about 9th grade, right? I saw this happen with a couple of my daughter’s friends. Only one didn’t grow out of it and even she has toned it down a lot. It’s tough. These groomers are pretty goddamn effective.
Saw it with at least 3/5 nieces. Not sure if any will fully recover.
I’m sure there can be a compromise.
Might be 10th. I can’t remember.
She seemed happy enough at the gathering.
social contagion, it’s real and adolescent girls are especially susceptible to it
I blame Tik Tok.
It certainly doesn’t help, but there is a reason that you don’t allow two anorexic girls to room together. They will reinforce each others’ behavior.
My grand kids came from a dysfunctional family setting, they were lucky in that they saw their friends’ families in a more normal light and all 3 are going well, all out of school. I may not agree with some of their choices but all 3 profess to be libertarians. I doubt they will ever lean left more than a teensy.
Aww. I hope the adults in her life don’t push her too far too fast. Sounds like she’s seeking, as many adolescents do.
We used to call them phases and let kids muddle through, but it’s tougher now with social media and a bunch of “grownups” itching to push their own agenda, regardless of cost to kids like your granddaughter.
Good luck.
+1
I grew up with several tomboys who ended up being the girliest of girlies. Today some dumbfuck teacher would tell them they were the wrong gender.
Thanks JI for a look at the Glib end state.
Alright, you hard heart bastards, I got a question for you.
Today, while at the gas station there was an Indian woman with a child in tow asking people for gas money. I think with limited success. She approached me too. Her English was kinda garbled with a thick accent and I was dismissive* and did not giver her any money. When leaving, she was standing near her minivan with Texas plates looking for the next batch of people to pull in and ask.
Would any of you have given her cash? Or filled her tank via credit card?
*Didn’t help I just saw the King of the Hill episode on panhandling over the weekend.
If I were so inclined, I would pay for the gas at the pump. No cash.
Living in Baltimore for a few years educated me on the multitude of panhandling scams.
Native American or from south Asia?
I’ve been cured of giving cash handouts after being on the street corner all day in NYC for a few weeks. I might giver her a fill up if she had a car full of kids and looked like they were actually traveling. I’ve given food, a ride, and half my sandwich to a few people.
Dot.
This almost exact thing happened to us this weekend. Family down on its luck, minivan packed, 3 kids, a woman and a man with a sign for food and gas. Mr. Mojeaux had a feeling he needed to fill their gas can, so we took their gas can, filled it, and returned it to them full. By the end of the day, they were gone.
Maybe. I generally don’t engage with panhandlers. Too many scammers. Too many addicts looking to be enabled. That said, I look for opportunities to give things instead of dollars. Want a tank of gas? Sure. Want a sandwich or a pizza? Fine. Want $50 and won’t take anything else? Fuck off.
I’m convicted of the fact that most of my reluctance to help those types of folks out is an internal dislike of them. They’re dirty, they’re loud, they’re aggressive, they’re whatever, and my suburban sensibilities can’t handle that. I’m called to give, not to do a full financial and psychological workup on the person. Giving things makes me feel better about not enabling abuse and fraud.
That made me laugh, remembering a friend of mine arguing with a mendicant outside an old White Hen Pantry on campus at U of IL…my friend said he would take him inside and buy him whatever sandwich he wanted, and the guy kept arguing for money…my friend finally jabbed a finger at him and loudly proclaimed “No, I know what you are going to do with it! I am from Chicago!”
I will give stuff – my church even makes up “Blessing bags” – bottle of water, small pack of Tylenol, a pack of Kleenex, a couple of granola bars, bar of soap, wet wipes, and maybe a $5 bill, etc. I call them (to myself) Bum bags…but I have seen people light up when they get one, because they really are short of stuff.
I had a friend with a similar story about the most well known bum at Purdue. He tried to give the guy a pizza, and the bum spiked it on the ground and started demanding money. I have zero patience for that kind of reaction. Of course, he had been there for years, so it wasn’t a temporary issue he was dealing with.
The bum, or your friend? :-p
Well, both, but that’s a story for another day.
A few weeks ago there was a gentleman in a wheelchair outside the convenience store. He was covered in scabs and had no teeth. He asked me to buy him a beer. I told him he could have water and a sandwich but I wouldn’t buy him alcohol. He replied that it’s doctor’s orders, he has to take his medication with a beer. Unfortunately for him I don’t trust doctors anymore and refused the water and sandwich offer.
No cash…you either get something useful, that I can see, like a meal or gas or you’re out of luck from me.
Could have been some new CDC thing?!
One time a coupla years ago on a hot GA afternoon, Mrs. Tree happened to hit the light so that her window was right where the panhandler was sitting to ask stopped drivers for cash. She got one of the kids to instead hand him a cold beer and a bag of chips that were handy. He definitely liked it. Last time I got asked was out front of church, when the guy’s story shifted to “I need cash to go to Goodwill to by socks because I don’t have any”. Bad move – I just took mine off and gave them to him and he left.
Good answer
I give bums money if they tell me they’re just tryin’ to get some booze. I reward honesty.
We’ll have a chance to see if organizations can undo themselves after the Roe decision. Watch the behavior of the RTL groups.
Depends on the state.
50 new orgs will blossom.
The right-to-lifers (and the pro-choicers) still have a mission – winning at the state legislature. I don’t see why they would disband.
At local levels in places that are generally pro-life, what it’s gonna do is blow up the hard-links to party affiliation – the whole reason the R establishment wanted to keep Roe. Basically, a very, very large percentage of the R’s support ONLY existed because of that. As it evolves to where a local D politician can be as openly pro-life as the R, the whole thing’s gonna shake up.
As it evolves to where a local D politician can be as openly pro-life as the R
That will require quite a change, as the trend has been in the other direction.
I think the incentive will develop locally in SOME places, though. Mostly because doing so would take away the only reason some folks call themselves an R. If the D opponent could credibly point out that he’s a pro-life as the R, then he could erode some of the differential support.
It’s 96 degrees American. The dew point is 81. I need to mow the lawn after work.
fuck me.
Isn’t that what your orphans are for? (Either the mowing, or fucking you.)
The orphans all died in the coffin ships on the journey over. I need to replenish my stock with locals.
The good news is that SCOTUS has increased the pool of unwanted kids.
Don’t discount Biden’s help at the border.
Has a chance for short term rental at the cabin by some El Salvadorean roofers. Turned them down
Coupla random thoughts on the shooting in Highland Park:
I keep hearing the weapon referred to as a “high-powered rifle”, but nobody can say exactly what he was shooting. I will be absolutely shocked if its not a .223/5.56. For one thing, look at that guy – no way is he putting out a couple dozen rounds of anything 30 caliber or above. This is not accidental – our enemies are trying to normalize calling ARs “high-powered”, even though to any knowledgable/rational person, they are not.
I just saw that he was wearing women’s clothes during the shooting (sorry, no linkee, I moved on). This factoid, I am confident, will be mentioned not at all by our enemies. Crossing the streams of “Yay, genderfluid” and “Trumpalo mass killer” will not be permitted.
I’ve seen it listed as a disguise – women’s clothing to help him get away in the crowds. *shrug*
A dude in women’s clothing is less likely to disappear into a crowd.
Although, nobody said he had a good plan.
Although 2.0, he is quite effeminate, so maybe this wasn’t such a bad plan?
Question for you gun nutz – I saw a twitter fight today about whether a M-16 was an AR-15, not being a gun nut I googled it and best I can tell is that a M-16 is a modified AR-15, Which to me means that yes a M-16 is a (type) of AR-15. The guy arguing that they aren’t was the 2A* guy so I’m wondering if I’m missing something.
*he also claimed that a square isn’t a rectangle so maybe he just has a problem with sub-type categorization.
My understanding (and I don’t even own an AR) is that the platforms are the same, with the exception of the M-16 having “select fire” capability. I believe select fire is three round bursts, but I’m not positive. If so, I bet there are true full auto variants.
And, of course, both the military (M) and civilian (AR) versions have subtypes and what are basically cosmetic/ergonomic variations.
The original M-16 was select fire between semi and fully automatic. Later iterations added a three round burst option to those. I think today there may even be a variant which dropped the full auto and just has semi/three round.
Here.
So an m-1
Or if I didn’t hit enter prematurely – So a M-16 is an AK-15. Wonder why the twitter gun guy is so adamant that they aren’t.
Nothing is an AK-15.
Well…
And then there’s this too…
Sorry, “AR” I told you I’m not a gun nut.
Armalite Rifle no 15 is a design that is now in the public domain. Anyone, and everyone, can make AR-15s — which may have lightly or heavily modified designs.
The original design was licensed to Colt to become the military M16.
So the M16 would be a subset of the universe of AR-15s.
He wouldn’t even harm a fly
I’d noticed that (at least last time I looked), they still hadn’t come out with “and AGAIN it’s an AR”, which makes me think it was a different technology. My first guess might be a 9mm, since I think there are a few out there. There’s also things like a Mini-30.