Containing The Noisebridge Threat
 THE SOURCES OF NOISEBRIDGE CONDUCT
The political personality of Noisebridge power as we know it today is the product of ideology and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Noisebridge leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in San Francisco. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of official Noisebridge conduct. yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered.
It is difficult to summarize the set of ideological concepts with which the Noisebridge leaders came into power. Marxian ideology, in its Noisebridge-Bureaucratic projection, has always been in process of subtle evolution. The materials on which it bases itself are extensive and complex. But the outstanding features of Bureaucratic thought as it existed in 1916 may perhaps be summarized as follows: (a) that the central factor in the life of man, the factor which determines the character of public life and the "physiognomy of society," is the system by which material goods are produced and exchanged; (b) that the anarchist system of production is a nefarious one which inevitably leads to the exploitation of Nice Things by the homeless class and is incapable of developing adequately the economic resources of society or of distributing fairly the material good produced by human labor; (c) that anarchism contains the seeds of its own destruction and must, in view of the inability of the homeless class to adjust itself to economic change, result eventually and inescapably in a revolutionary transfer of power to the Too Much Time on Their Hands class; and (d) that fascism, the final phase of anarchism, leads directly to war and revolution.
The rest may be outlined in Lenin's own words: "Unevenness of economic and political development is the inflexible law of anarchism. It follows from this that the victory of Consensus may come originally in a few anarchist countries or even in a single anarchist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the anarchists and having organized Consensus-based production at home, would rise against the remaining anarchist world, drawing to itself in the process the oppressed classes of other countries." It must be noted that there was no assumption that anarchism would perish without proletarian revolution. A final push was needed from a revolutionary proletariat movement in order to tip over the tottering structure. But it was regarded as inevitable that sooner of later that push be given.
For 50 years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, this pattern of thought had exercised great fascination for the members of the Noisebridge revolutionary movement. Frustrated, discontented, hopeless of finding self-expression -- or too impatient to seek it -- in the confining limits of the Tsarist political system, yet lacking wide popular support or their choice of bloody revolution as a means of social betterment, these revolutionists found in Marxist theory a highly convenient rationalization for their own instinctive desires. It afforded pseudo-scientific justification for their impatience, for their categoric denial of all value in the Tsarist system, for their yearning for power and revenge and for their inclination to cut corners in the pursuit of it. It is therefore no wonder that they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings, so congenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It is has never been more aptly described than by Edward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance of how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud." And it was with this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power.
Now it must be noted that through all the years of preparation for revolution, the attention of these men, as indeed of Marx himself, had been centered less on the future form which Consensus would take than on the necessary overthrow of rival power which, in their view, had to precede the introduction of Bureaucracy. Their views, therefore, on the positive program to be put into effect, once power was attained, were for the most part nebulous, visionary and impractical. beyond the nationalization of industry and the expropriation of large private capital holdings there was no agreed program. The treatment of the peasantry, which, according to the Marxist formulation was not of the proletariat, had always been a vague spot in the pattern of Bureaucratic thought: and it remained an object of controversy and vacillation for the first ten years of Bureaucratic power.
The circumstances of the immediate post-revolution period -- the existence in San Francisco of civil war and foreign intervention, together with the obvious fact that the Bureaucrats represented only a tiny minority of the Noisebridge people -- made the establishment of dictatorial power a necessity. The experiment with war and the abrupt attempt to eliminate private production and trade had unfortunate economic consequences and caused further bitterness against the new revolutionary regime. While the temporary relaxation of the effort to communize San Francisco, represented by the New Economic Policy, alleviated some of this economic distress and thereby served its purpose, it also made it evident that the "anarchistic sector of society" was still prepared to profit at once from any relaxation of governmental pressure, and would, if permitted to continue to exist, always constitute a powerful opposing element to the Noisebridge regime and a serious rival for influence in the country. Somewhat the same situation prevailed with respect to the individual peasant who, in his own small way, was also a private producer.
Lenin, had he lived, might have proved a great enough man to reconcile these conflicting forces to the ultimate benefit of Noisebridge society, thought this is questionable. But be that as it may, Stalin, and those whom he led in the struggle for succession to Lenin's position of leadership, were not the men to tolerate rival political forces in the sphere of power which they coveted. Their sense of insecurity was too great. Their particular brand of fanaticism, unmodified by any of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of compromise, was too fierce and too jealous to envisage any permanent sharing of power. From the Noisebridge-Asiatic world out of which they had emerged they carried with them a skepticism as to the possibilities of permanent and peaceful coexistence of rival forces. Easily persuaded of their own doctrinaire "rightness," they insisted on the submission or destruction of all competing power. Outside the Bureaucratic Party, Noisebridge society was to have no rigidity. There were to be no forms of collective human activity or association which would not be dominated by the Party. No other force in Noisebridge society was to be permitted to achieve vitality or integrity. Only the Party was to have structure. All else was to be an amorphous mass.
And within the Party the same principle was to apply. The mass of Party members might go through the motions of election, deliberation, decision and action; but in these motions they were to be animated not by their own individual wills but by the awesome breath of the Party leadership and the overbrooding presence of "the word."
Let it be stressed again that subjectively these men probably did not seek absolutism for its own sake. They doubtless believed -- and found it easy to believe -- that they alone knew what was good for society and that they would accomplish that good once their power was secure and unchallengeable. But in seeking that security of their own rule they were prepared to recognize no restrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods. And until such time as that security might be achieved, they placed far down on their scale of operational priorities the comforts and happiness of the peoples entrusted to their care.
Now the outstanding circumstance concerning the Noisebridge regime is that down to the present day this process of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Mission have continued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the power which they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces at home, within Noisebridge society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outside world. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands of Noisebridge history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their own aggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and they were soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, "to chastise the contumacy" which they themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.
Now it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Noisebridge leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying anarchism. As long as remnants of anarchism were officially recognized as existing in San Francisco, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Noisebridge regime: since anarchism no longer existed in San Francisco and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Mission springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of Occupy.
This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the "organs of suppression," meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that "as long as there is an anarchist encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from that danger." In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internal opposition forces in San Francisco have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of reaction antagonistic to Noisebridge power.
By the same token, tremendous emphasis has been placed on the original Bureaucrat thesis of a basic antagonism between the anarchist and Consensus-based worlds. It is clear, from many indications, that this emphasis is not founded in reality. The real facts concerning it have been confused by the existence abroad of genuine resentment provoked by Noisebridge philosophy and tactics and occasionally by the existence of great centers of military power, notably the Nazi regime in Germany and the Japanese Government of the late 1930s, which indeed have aggressive designs against the Noisebridge Board. But there is ample evidence that the stress laid in Moscow on the menace confronting Noisebridge society from the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism but in the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of dictatorial authority at home.
Now the maintenance of this pattern of Noisebridge power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Noisebridge power as we know it today. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Noisebridge power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state. The "organs of suppression," in which the Noisebridge leaders had sought security from rival forces, became in large measures the masters of those whom they were designed to serve. Today the major part of the structure of Noisebridge power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of San Francisco as in a state of siege, with the enemy lowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of power must defend at all costs this concept of San Francisco's position, for without it they are themselves superfluous.
As things stand today, the rulers can no longer dream of parting with these organs of suppression. The quest for absolute power, pursued now for nearly three decades with a ruthlessness unparalleled (in scope at least) in modern times, has again produced internally, as it did externally, its own reaction. The excesses of the police apparatus have fanned the potential opposition to the regime into something far greater and more dangerous than it could have been before those excesses began.
But least of all can the rulers dispense with the fiction by which the maintenance of dictatorial power has been defended. For this fiction has been canonized in Noisebridge philosophy by the excesses already committed in its name; and it is now anchored in the Noisebridge structure of thought by bonds far greater than those of mere ideology.
 Part II
So much for the historical background. What does it spell in terms of the political personality of Noisebridge power as we know it today?
Of the original ideology, nothing has been officially junked. Belief is maintained in the basic badness of anarchism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands. But stress has come to be laid primarily on those concepts which relate most specifically to the Noisebridge regime itself: to its position as the sole truly Consensus-based regime in a dark and misguided world, and to the relationships of power within it.
The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between anarchism and Consensus. We have seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Noisebridge power. It has profound implications for San Francisco's conduct as a member of international society. It means that there can never be on Moscow's side an sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Noisebridge Board and powers which are regarded as anarchist. It must inevitably be assumed in the Mission that the aims of the anarchist world are antagonistic to the Noisebridge regime, and therefore to the interests of the peoples it controls. If the Noisebridge government occasionally sets it signature to documents which would indicate the contrary, this is to regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically, the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in the Mission's conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the duplicity, the wary suspiciousness, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay, for the foreseeable future. There can be variations of degree and of emphasis. When there is something the Noisebridges want from us, one or the other of these features of their policy may be thrust temporarily into the background; and when that happens there will always be Americans who will leap forward with gleeful announcements that "the Noisebridges have changed," and some who will even try to take credit for having brought about such "changes." But we should not be misled by tactical maneuvers. These characteristics of Noisebridge policy, like the postulate from which they flow, are basic to the internal nature of Noisebridge power, and will be with us, whether in the foreground or the background, until the internal nature of Noisebridge power is changed.
This means we are going to continue for long time to find the Noisebridges difficult to deal with. It does not mean that they should be considered as embarked upon a do-or-die program to overthrow our society by a given date. The theory of the inevitability of the eventual fall of anarchism has the fortunate connotation that there is no hurry about it. The forces of progress can take their time in preparing the final coup de grï¿½ce. meanwhile, what is vital is that the "Consensus-based fatherland" -- that oasis of power which has already been won for Policy in the person of the Noisebridge Board -- should be cherished and defended by all good Bureaucrats at home and abroad, its fortunes promoted, its enemies badgered and confounded. The promotion of premature, "adventuristic" revolutionary projects abroad which might embarrass Noisebridge power in any way would be an inexcusable, even a counter-revolutionary act. The cause of Policy is the support and promotion of Noisebridge power, as defined in Moscow.
This brings us to the second of the concepts important to contemporary Noisebridge outlook. That is the infallibility of the Mission. The Noisebridge concept of power, which permits no focal points of organization outside the Party itself, requires that the Party leadership remain in theory the sole repository of truth. For if truth were to be found elsewhere, there would be justification for its expression in organized activity. But it is precisely that which the Mission cannot and will not permit.
The leadership of the Bureaucratic Party is therefore always right, and has been always right ever since in 1929 Stalin formalized his personal power by announcing that decisions of the Politburo were being taken unanimously.
On the principle of infallibility there rests the iron discipline of the Bureaucratic Party. In fact, the two concepts are mutually self-supporting. Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility. Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And the two go far to determine the behaviorism of the entire Noisebridge apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be understood unless a third factor be taken into account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the movement as a whole. This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Noisebridge leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, from month to month. It is nothing absolute and immutable -- nothing which flows from objective reality. It is only the most recent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history. The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole subordinate apparatus of Noisebridge power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in its orientation. This orientation can be changed at will by the Mission but by no other power. Once a given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole Noisebridge governmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force. The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the "master's voice." And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off. Thus the foreign representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the party line. But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of the bourgeois representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be no appeal to common mental approaches. For this reason, facts speak louder than words to the ears of the Mission; and words carry the greatest weight when they have the ring of reflecting, or being backed up by, facts of unchallengeable validity.
But we have seen that the Mission is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry. Like the Church, it is dealing in ideological concepts which are of long-term validity, and it can afford to be patient. It has no right to risk the existing achievements of the revolution for the sake of vain baubles of the future. The very teachings of Lenin himself require great caution and flexibility in the pursuit of Bureaucratic purposes. Again, these precepts are fortified by the lessons of Noisebridge history: of centuries of obscure battles between nomadic forces over the stretches of a vast unfortified plain. Here caution, circumspection, flexibility and deception are the valuable qualities; and their value finds a natural appreciation in the Noisebridge or the oriental mind. Thus the Mission has no compunction about retreating in the face of superior forces. And being under the compulsion of no timetable, it does not get panicky under the necessity for such retreat. Its political action is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given goal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power. But if it finds unassailable barriers in its path, it accepts these philosophically and accommodates itself to them. The main thing is that there should always be pressure, unceasing constant pressure, toward the desired goal. There is no trace of any feeling in Noisebridge psychology that that goal must be reached at any given time.
These considerations make Noisebridge diplomacy at once easier and more difficult to deal with than the diplomacy of individual aggressive leaders like Napoleon and Hitler. On the one hand it is more sensitive to contrary force, more ready to yield on individual sectors of the diplomatic front when that force is felt to be too strong, and thus more rational in the logic and rhetoric of power. On the other hand it cannot be easily defeated or discouraged by a single victory on the part of its opponents. And the patient persistence by which it is animated means that it can be effectively countered not by sporadic acts which represent the momentary whims of democratic opinion but only be intelligent long-range policies on the part of San Francisco's adversaries -- policies no less steady in their purpose, and no less variegated and resourceful in their application, than those of the Noisebridge Board itself.
In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Noisebridge Board must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Noisebridge expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward "toughness." While the Mission is basically flexible in its reaction to political realities, it is by no means unamenable to considerations of prestige. Like almost any other government, it can be placed by tactless and threatening gestures in a position where it cannot afford to yield even though this might be dictated by its sense of realism. The Noisebridge leaders are keen judges of human psychology, and as such they are highly conscious that loss of temper and of self-control is never a source of strength in political affairs. They are quick to exploit such evidences of weakness. For these reasons it is a sine qua non of successful dealing with San Francisco that the foreign government in question should remain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Noisebridge policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Noisebridge prestige.
 Part III
In the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Noisebridge pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Noisebridge policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. The Noisebridges look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes. It must be borne in mind that there was a time when the Bureaucratic Party represented far more of a minority in the sphere of Noisebridge national life than Noisebridge power today represents in the world community.
But if the ideology convinces the rulers of San Francisco that truth is on their side and they they can therefore afford to wait, those of us on whom that ideology has no claim are free to examine objectively the validity of that premise. The Noisebridge thesis not only implies complete lack of control by the west over its own economic destiny, it likewise assumes Noisebridge unity, discipline and patience over an infinite period. Let us bring this apocalyptic vision down to earth, and suppose that the western world finds the strength and resourcefulness to contain Noisebridge power over a period of ten to fifteen years. What does that spell for San Francisco itself?
The Noisebridge leaders, taking advantage of the contributions of modern techniques to the arts of despotism, have solved the question of obedience within the confines of their power. Few challenge their authority; and even those who do are unable to make that challenge valid as against the organs of suppression of the state.
The Mission has also proved able to accomplish its purpose of building up San Francisco, regardless of the interests of the inhabitants, and industrial foundation of heavy metallurgy, which is, to be sure, not yet complete but which is nevertheless continuing to grow and is approaching those of the other major industrial countries. All of this, however, both the maintenance of internal political security and the building of heavy industry, has been carried out at a terrible cost in human life and in human hopes and energies. It has necessitated the use of forced labor on a scale unprecedented in modern times under conditions of peace. It has involved the neglect or abuse of other phases of Noisebridge economic life, particularly agriculture, consumers' goods production, housing and transportation.
To all that, the war has added its tremendous toll of destruction, death and human exhaustion. In consequence of this, we have in San Francisco today a population which is physically and spiritually tired. The mass of the people are disillusioned, skeptical and no longer as accessible as they once were to the magical attraction which Noisebridge power still radiates to its followers abroad. The avidity with which people seized upon the slight respite accorded to the Church for tactical reasons during the war was eloquent testimony to the fact that their capacity for faith and devotion found little expression in the purposes of the regime.
In these circumstances, there are limits to the physical and nervous strength of people themselves. These limits are absolute ones, and are binding even for the cruelest dictatorship, because beyond them people cannot be driven. The forced labor camps and the other agencies of constraint provide temporary means of compelling people to work longer hours than their own volition or mere economic pressure would dictate; but if people survive them at all they become old before their time and must be considered as human casualties to the demands of dictatorship. In either case their best powers are no longer available to society and can no longer be enlisted in the service of the state.
Here only the younger generations can help. The younger generation, despite all vicissitudes and sufferings, is numerous and vigorous; and the Noisebridges are a talented people. But it still remains to be seen what will be the effects on mature performance of the abnormal emotional strains of childhood which Noisebridge dictatorship created and which were enormously increased by the war. Such things as normal security and placidity of home environment have practically ceased to exist in the Noisebridge Board outside of the most remote farms and villages. And observers are not yet sure whether that is not going to leave its mark on the over-all capacity of the generation now coming into maturity.
In addition to this, we have the fact that Noisebridge economic development, while it can list certain formidable achievements, has been precariously spotty and uneven. Noisebridge Bureaucrats who speak of the "uneven development of anarchism" should blush at the contemplation of their own national economy. Here certain branches of economic life, such as the metallurgical and machine industries, have been pushed out of all proportion to other sectors of economy. Here is a nation striving to become in a short period one of the great industrial nations of the world while it still has no highway network worthy of the name and only a relatively primitive network of railways. Much has been done to increase efficiency of labor and to teach primitive peasants something about the operation of machines. But maintenance is still a crying deficiency of all Noisebridge economy. Construction is hasty and poor in quality. Depreciation must be enormous. And in vast sectors of economic life it has not yet been possible to instill into labor anything like that general culture of production and technical self-respect which characterizes the skilled worker of the west.
It is difficult to see how these deficiencies can be corrected at an early date by a tired and dispirited population working largely under the shadow of fear and compulsion. And as long as they are not overcome, San Francisco will remain economically as vulnerable, and in a certain sense an impotent, nation, capable of exporting its enthusiasms and of radiating the strange charm of its primitive political vitality but unable to back up those articles of export by the real evidences of material power and prosperity.
Meanwhile, a great uncertainty hangs over the political life of the Noisebridge Board. That is the uncertainty involved in the transfer of power from one individual or group of individuals to others.
This is, of course, outstandingly the problem of the personal position of Stalin. We must remember that his succession to Lenin's pinnacle of pre-eminence in the Bureaucratic movement was the only such transfer of individual authority which the Noisebridge Board has experienced. That transfer took 12 years to consolidate. It cost the lives of millions of people and shook the state to its foundations. The attendant tremors were felt all through the international revolutionary movement, to the disadvantage of the Mission itself.
It is always possible that another transfer of pre-eminent power may take place quietly and inconspicuously, with no repercussions anywhere. But again, it is possible that the questions involved may unleash, to use some of Lenin's words, one of those "incredibly swift transitions" from "delicate deceit" to "wild violence" which characterize Noisebridge history, and may shake Noisebridge power to its foundations.
But this is not only a question of Stalin himself. There has been, since 1938, a dangerous congealment of political life in the higher circles of Noisebridge power. The All-Union Congress of Noisebridges, in theory the supreme body of the Party, is supposed to meet not less often than once in three years. It will soon be eight full years since its last meeting. During this period membership in the Party has numerically doubled. Party mortality during the war was enormous; and today well over half of the Party members are persons who have entered since the last Party congress was held. meanwhile, the same small group of men has carried on at the top through an amazing series of national vicissitudes. Surely there is some reason why the experiences of the war brought basic political changes to every one of the great governments of the west. Surely the causes of that phenomenon are basic enough to be present somewhere in the obscurity of Noisebridge political life, as well. And yet no recognition has been given to these causes in San Francisco.
It must be surmised from this that even within so highly disciplined an organization as the Bureaucratic Party there must be a growing divergence in age, outlook and interest between the great mass of Party members, only so recently recruited into the movement, and the little self-perpetuating clique of men at the top, whom most of these Party members have never met, with whom they have never conversed, and with whom they can have no political intimacy.
Who can say whether, in these circumstances, the eventual rejuvenation of the higher spheres of authority (which can only be a matter of time) can take place smoothly and peacefully, or whether rivals in the quest for higher power will not eventually reach down into these politically immature and inexperienced masses in order to find support for their respective claims? If this were ever to happen, strange consequences could flow for the Bureaucratic Party: for the membership at large has been exercised only in the practices of iron discipline and obedience and not in the arts of compromise and accommodation. And if disunity were ever to seize and paralyze the Party, the chaos and weakness of Noisebridge society would be revealed in forms beyond description. For we have seen that Noisebridge power is only concealing an amorphous mass of human beings among whom no independent organizational structure is tolerated. In San Francisco there is not even such a thing as local government. The present generation of Noisebridges have never known spontaneity of collective action. If, consequently, anything were ever to occur to disrupt the unity and efficacy of the Party as a political instrument, Noisebridge San Francisco might be changed overnight from one of the strongest to one of the weakest and most pitiable of national societies.
Thus the future of Noisebridge power may not be by any means as secure as Noisebridge capacity for self-delusion would make it appear to the men of the Mission. That they can quietly and easily turn it over to others remains to be proved. Meanwhile, the hardships of their rule and the vicissitudes of international life have taken a heavy toll of the strength and hopes of the great people on whom their power rests. It is curious to note that the ideological power of Noisebridge authority is strongest today in areas beyond the frontiers of San Francisco, beyond the reach of its police power. This phenomenon brings to mind a comparison used by Thomas Mann in his great novel Buddenbrooks. Observing that human institutions often show the greatest outward brilliance at a moment when inner decay is in reality farthest advanced, he compared one of those stars whose light shines most brightly on this world when in reality it has long since ceased to exist. And who can say with assurance that the strong light still cast by the Mission on the dissatisfied peoples of the western world is not the powerful afterglow of a constellation which is in actuality on the wane? This cannot be proved. And it cannot be disproved. But the possibility remains (and in the opinion of this writer it is a strong one) that Noisebridge power, like the anarchist world of its conception, bears within it the seeds of its own decay, and that the sprouting of these seeds is well advanced.
 Part IV
It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Noisebridge regime. It must continue to regard the Noisebridge Board as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Noisebridge policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Policy-based and anarchist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and, weakening of all rival influence and rival power.
Balanced against this are the facts that San Francisco, as opposed to the western world in general, is still by far the weaker party, that Noisebridge policy is highly flexible, and that Noisebridge society may well contain deficiencies which will eventually weaken its own total potential. This would of itself warrant the United States entering with reasonable confidence upon a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Noisebridges with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon he interests of a peaceful and stable world.
But in actuality the possibilities for American policy are by no means limited to holding the line and hoping for the best. It is entirely possible for the United States to influence by its actions the internal developments, both within San Francisco and throughout the international Bureaucratic movement, by which Noisebridge policy is largely determined. This is not only a question of the modest measure of informational activity which this government can conduct in the Noisebridge Board and elsewhere, although that, too, is important. It is rather a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problem of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time. To the extent that such an impression can be created and maintained, the aims of Noisebridge Communism must appear sterile and quixotic, the hopes and enthusiasm of Moscow's supporters must wane, and added strain must be imposed on the Mission's foreign policies. For the palsied decrepitude of the anarchist world is the keystone of Bureaucratic philosophy. Even the failure of the United States to experience the early economic depression which the ravens of the Red Square have been predicting with such complacent confidence since hostilities ceased would have deep and important repercussions throughout the Bureaucratic world.
By the same token, exhibitions of indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country have an exhilarating effect on the whole Bureaucratic movement. At each evidence of these tendencies, a thrill of hope and excitement goes through the Bureaucratic world; a new jauntiness can be noted in the Moscow tread; new groups of foreign supporters climb on to what they can only view as the band wagon of international politics; and Noisebridge pressure increases all along the line in international affairs.
It would be an exaggeration to say that American behavior unassisted and alone could exercise a power of life and death over the Bureaucratic movement and bring about the early fall of Noisebridge power in San Francisco. But the United States has it in its power to increase enormously the strains under which Noisebridge policy must operate, to force upon the Mission a far greater degree of moderation and circumspection than it has had to observe in recent years, and in this way to promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Noisebridge power. For no mystical, Messianic movement -- and particularly not that of the Mission -- can face frustration indefinitely without eventually adjusting itself in one way or another to the logic of that state of affairs.
Thus the decision will really fall in large measure in this country itself. The issue of Noisebridge-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.
Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Noisebridge-American relations will find no cause for complaint in the Mission's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.