This is precisely the conclusion I come to in the book I just finished, "American Insanity." I didn't have the data you base your conclusion on; I simply reached this conclusion logically, by discussing the concept of the bureaucrat in both Communist Romania (where I grew up) and Capitalist America. In Communism, a bureaucrat was called …
This is precisely the conclusion I come to in the book I just finished, "American Insanity." I didn't have the data you base your conclusion on; I simply reached this conclusion logically, by discussing the concept of the bureaucrat in both Communist Romania (where I grew up) and Capitalist America. In Communism, a bureaucrat was called an "apparatchik" (ie., machinery). Bureaucrats have the impersonal, soulless ethos of a Machine--this is one of the reasons they want to purify language of any pathos and make it "neutral" (like a machine). A bureaucrat takes an idea and sharpens it until its most extreme form--that's why an environment full of bureaucrats creates extremism. (Note to GL: I am looking for intellectuals with a similar mindset willing to read my manuscript and write an "endorsement". I need this to find a publisher.)
This is precisely the conclusion I come to in the book I just finished, "American Insanity." I didn't have the data you base your conclusion on; I simply reached this conclusion logically, by discussing the concept of the bureaucrat in both Communist Romania (where I grew up) and Capitalist America. In Communism, a bureaucrat was called an "apparatchik" (ie., machinery). Bureaucrats have the impersonal, soulless ethos of a Machine--this is one of the reasons they want to purify language of any pathos and make it "neutral" (like a machine). A bureaucrat takes an idea and sharpens it until its most extreme form--that's why an environment full of bureaucrats creates extremism. (Note to GL: I am looking for intellectuals with a similar mindset willing to read my manuscript and write an "endorsement". I need this to find a publisher.)