Kelly Johnson’s Skunk Works delivered the U-2 in eight months in 1955. It was a genuinely revolutionary aircraft that could fly at 70,000 feet and photograph the Soviet Union. And they did it with slide rules and drawing boards.

Now, apparently we’re supposed to celebrate two years to get a “collaborative combat aircraft” (which sounds like consultant-speak for “drone”) into the air, with all our modern CAD tools, simulation software, and manufacturing capabilities. Uh huh, ok USAF.

“This is More Air Force in action,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin. “We’re not just moving fast — we’re learning fast. CCA will help us rethink the battlespace, extend reach, flexibility and lethality in combat operations, and optimize warfighter performance through human-machine teaming.”

Totally. In other words, it’s a radio controlled airplane of the 1930s. The enemy must be so scared.

Johnson would’ve revealed “It takes pictures the Russians can’t stop” and walked away. This is like watching the brass pour alphabet soup into a blender and then forget how to turn it off.

The U-2 was more than just fast development, it was hard development. They pushed absolute limits of what was physically possible with materials and engines of the era. This thing… we don’t even know what it’s supposed to do besides “collaborate” and “operate alongside” other aircraft increasing complexity and cost of operation.

Correction. It’s a participation medal robot. And to be honest, at first glance, I smell a Nazi V1 design error already.

The Nazis sold the deeply flawed V-1 as revolutionary autonomous aircraft technology right up until people realized it was an expensive way to maybe hit London if the wind was blowing the right direction. At least the V-1 had a clear mission: blow stuff up in roughly the right area. This “collaborative” spiel sounds like management consultants who find new ways to make a mess and avoid accountability by “optimizing performance through teaming.”

Lowering the bar comes to mind. When engineering management can’t deliver results, they sometimes move the goalposts to where just showing up becomes their achievement. “We didn’t take three years!” becomes the win condition instead of “We built something that fundamentally changes air combat.” You are only allowed to measure things that are self-evident and irrefutable noise.

The fact that they’re more excited about their acquisition process than their aircraft tells you everything.

Kelly Johnson would’ve been embarrassed to hold a press conference about procurement methodology while the actual plane needed for war was still a concept unable to deliver a win. He would say “It flies higher and farther than anything else.” This PR puff says “enables rapid transition of combat power upon delivery”, a fancy way of saying “we’ll deliver when we deliver, sign here please”.

Let’s cut to the chase. “Human-machine teaming” isn’t a capability, it’s a cynical liability distribution strategy to protect the men playing golf during go-time. When a machine inevitably fails, brass can release “teaming” chaff at investigators and accountants hot on the trail of dead pilots. Was it a human’s fault for not collaborating properly? The machine’s fault for not optimizing correctly? Tesla has proven the absolute stupidity of such a metric, killing hundreds of civilians unnecessarily.

The U-2 is still flying 70 years later, yet we have to wonder if anyone will remember these YFQBGDXGYDXV-42AHFCBJYDDVJES drones by next year. Can they survive modern contests, advance into the fire and collaborate mixups, without defunding every public school in America let alone killing their own “collaborators”?

See you at the white board.

FTC Letter Mirrors 1933 Nazi Playbook Against Foreign Laws

A Direct Parallel

In August 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson (former chief counsel to Mitch McConnell 2019 to 2021, serving as judicial confirmation strategist) sent letters to major tech companies warning them against complying with European regulations – using tactics that directly mirror the Nazi approach from 1933. Both Ferguson’s 2025 letter as reported in Wired and the Nazi regime followed the same playbook:

1. Demanding Companies Reject Foreign Laws: Ferguson explicitly warned tech companies that “censoring Americans to comply with a foreign power’s laws” could violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and that “weakening encryption or other security measures to comply with the laws, demands, or expected demands of a foreign government may also violate Section 5.”

   The Nazis did exactly this in 1933. Hitler’s government “immediately began preparing for the war he planned to wage” with foreign policy that sought to “undo the Treaty of Versailles, build alliances, and incorporate territories with German populations into the Reich.” Just three months after taking power, Hitler made his first major break with the Treaty of Versailles by withdrawing Germany from the League of Nations on the 14 October 1933.

2. “Foreign Powers” Rhetoric: Ferguson characterizes EU regulations as actions by “foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption” that “will erode Americans’ freedoms.”

   The Nazis used nearly identical language, with German Foreign Office having “the task of persuading Europe’s sovereign states to resolve their ‘Jewish question’ themselves or by turning their Jewish population over to Germany.” To be clear, both regimes specifically targeted democratic allies as threats. The Nazis characterized the League of Nations (democratic countries) as enemies, just like Ferguson is targeting EU/UK democratic regulations.

3. Threatening Business Enforcement: Ferguson threatened companies with FTC action if they comply with European laws, stating “if companies censor Americans or weaken privacy and communications security at the request of a foreign power, I will not hesitate to enforce the law.”

   The Nazis used identical enforcement tactics in 1933. They systematically threatened German businesses with legal consequences for any cooperation with foreign powers or international agreements. Through Gleichschaltung, the regime forced companies to choose between Nazi compliance and international relationships. The German Labor Front, established in May 1933, became the primary enforcement mechanism, dissolving all independent trade unions and replacing them with Nazi-controlled organizations. By 1933, Nazi authorities were conducting coordinated raids on businesses that maintained international ties, confiscating assets and imprisoning leaders who refused to reject foreign oversight. During 1933-1939, “Government agencies at all levels aimed to exclude Jews from the economic sphere of Germany by preventing them from earning a living” – precisely the same tactic Ferguson is now using against companies that comply with European democratic regulations.

The Nazis framed rejection of international agreements as defending German sovereignty and freedom, while threatening domestic businesses with legal consequences for any cooperation with foreign powers – exactly what Ferguson is doing with European digital regulations.

The FTC thus is following the 1933 Nazi playbook nearly word for word.

The fact Ferguson is targeting democratic allies’ regulations (EU Digital Services Act, UK Online Safety Act) using the same playbook the Nazis used against the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles is particularly striking. Let’s cut to the core of how authoritarian tactics work: they don’t start with obvious extremism, they start with seemingly reasonable sovereignty arguments that gradually normalize the rejection of international cooperation and democratic norms. When government officials use sovereignty rhetoric to demand businesses reject democratic allies’ laws while threatening enforcement, history shows us exactly where this leads.

Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels in 1933 deceptively framed foreign regulation as interference that threatened domestic freedom:

They do all they can to cause the Reich domestic and international difficulties. These pacifists from head to toe do not even hesitate to urge bloody war against Germany in the foreign papers that are not yet wise enough to refuse them space.

This is the same logic flip as Ferguson’s language today about “foreign powers” trying to “impose censorship” and “erode Americans’ freedoms.”

Both men fraudulently frame regular democratic criticism instead as hostile foreign interference threatening national sovereignty. In other words, they advocate harsh regulation and censorship while falsely claiming they oppose it.

Don’t forget, Ferguson served as McConnell’s judicial confirmation strategist, systematically placing conservative judges throughout the federal court system. His expertise in institutional capture through legal mechanisms set the autocratic foundation work he’s now employing against tech companies.

Ferguson’s letter follows the exact legal-theoretical framework Carl Schmitt developed to justify Nazi authoritarianism. Schmitt’s infamous doctrine that “the sovereign is he who decides on the exception” provided the intellectual foundation for suspending normal legal rules whenever the regime claimed a crisis. On March 26, 1933, Schmitt proclaimed the Weimar Constitution defunct and justified Hitler’s emergency powers as necessary to protect German sovereignty from foreign interference.

Ferguson is applying identical logic: declaring that compliance with democratic allies’ regulations constitutes an emergency threatening American sovereignty, justifying the FTC’s authority to override normal international legal cooperation.

This is Schmittian exceptionalism in practice with crisis rhetoric to expand executive power while rejecting democratic institutional constraints. Ferguson demanded immediate responses (by August 28), showing the same pressure tactics the Nazis used for absurdly rapid compliance to fascist doctrine.