“4. The iron law of bureaucracy states that for all organizations, most of their activity will be devoted to the perpetuation of the organization, not to the pursuit of its ostensible objective. (This emerges organically from the needs of the organization’s employees.)
5. Governments are organizations.
6. We observe the increasing militarization of police forces and the priviliging of intelligence agencies all around the world. And in the media, a permanent drumbeat of fear, doubt and paranoia directed at “terrorists” (a paper tiger threat that kills fewer than 0.1% of the number who die in road traffic accidents).
7. Money can buy you cooperation from people in government, even when it’s not supposed to.
8. The internet disintermediates supply chains.
9. Political legitimacy in a democracy is a finite resource, so supplies are constrained.
10. The purpose of democracy is to provide a formal mechanism for transfer of power without violence, when the faction in power has lost legitimacy.
11. Our mechanisms for democratic power transfer date to the 18th century. They are inherently slower to respond to change than the internet and our contemporary news media.
12. A side-effect of (7) is the financialization of government services (2).
13. Security services are obeying the iron law of bureaucracy (4) when they metastasize, citing terrorism (6) as a justification for their expansion. 14. The expansion of the security state is seen as desirable by the government not because of the terrorist threat (which is largely manufactured) but because of (11): the legitimacy of government (9) is becoming increasingly hard to assert in the context of (2), (12) is broadly unpopular with the electorate, but (3) means that the interests of the public (labour) are ignored by states increasingly dominated by capital (because of (1)) unless there’s a threat of civil disorder. So states are tooling up for large-scale civil unrest.”
“In a nutshell, the Holy Roman Empire after the Thirty Years War agreed to leave the question of sovereignty and integration ambiguous. Thus its laws were signed by “Kaiser und Reich”, emperor and empire, where empire meant the princes. In much the same way, the German and EU flags today fly side by side on top of parliament.
The struggle between closer union or looser union was thus resolved in favor of a looser union, rather as Britain imagines the ideal EU today. As Hamilton’s America had slavery, the Empire had the Catholic-Protestant conflict, but it defused this through loosening of the union (“subsidiarity” in the language of today’s EU). The Holy Roman Empire would never again fight about religion. (Arguably, the Catholic/Orthodox-Protestant split continues in the EU and euro zone to this day.)
Even the process and style of bureaucracy was similar: Germans today have the phrase “etwas auf die lange Bank schieben” (to shove something onto the long bench) to mean endless delays in Brussels or elsewhere. The phrase originated at the imperial diet in Regensburg, where delegates literally shoved their paperwork onto a long bench which still exists in the city hall today. (Several German Eurocrats have remarked to me that Germans, with their millennium of experience with federalism, tolerate the processes of Brussels more readily than the French or British do, with their history of centralism.)”
“But the US variant of classical imperialism predates the Cold War instantiation embraced by the Truman administration. As Appleman Williams notes, post-World War I leaders like Hoover, Coolidge, Hughes, and Stimson endorsed an international ‘community of interest,’ achieved by encouraging the penetration of US business worldwide. In Appleman Williams’s words, “These men were not imperialist in the traditional sense… They sought instead the ‘internationalization of business’… Through the use of economic power they wanted to establish a common bond… Their deployment of America’s material strength is unquestioned.”
It is important to note that their choice of a more benign imperialism was not based upon moral considerations, but self-interest. Moreover, it necessarily preferred stability when possible, even if stability came through the exercise of military might. President Coolidge acknowledged this in a Memorial Day address in 1928: “Our investments and trade relations are such that it is almost impossible to conceive of any conflict anywhere on earth which would not affect us injuriously.” As a late-comer to the imperial scramble, US elites chose the non-colonial option, avoiding the enormous costs in coercion, counter-insurgency, and paternalistic occupation associated with colonialism–and equally avoiding conflicts that might rock existing and expanding business relations.
In the post-World War II era, the Marshall Plan and The Point Four program were early examples of neo-colonial Trojan Horses, programs aimed at cementing exploitative capitalist relations while posturing as generosity and assistance. They, and other programs, were successful efforts to weave consent, seduction, and extortion into a robust foreign policy securing the goals of imperialism without the moral revulsion of colonial repression and the cost of vast colonies.
In the wake of World War II, US imperialism reaped generous harvests from the ‘new’ imperialism. Commerce Department figures show total earnings on US investments abroad nearly doubling from 1946 through 1950. As of 1950, 69% of US direct investments abroad were in extractive industries, much of that in oil production (direct investment income from petroleum grew by 350% in the five-year period). Clearly the US had recognized its enormous thirst for oil to both fuel economic growth and power the military machine necessary to protect and enforce the ‘internationalization of business.’
One estimate of the rate of return on US direct investments from 1946 to and including 1950 claims that Middle Eastern investments (mainly oil) garnered twice the rate of return of investments in Marshall Plan participant countries which, in turn, produced a rate of return nearly twice that of investments made in countries that did not participate in the US plan. Undoubtedly, US elites were pleased with the rewards of the new imperial gambit.”
“Unfortunately the very idea of class solidarity in America, especially in Silicon Valley, has an odor of ridiculous obsolescence. It՚s a boring and trite view of the world, compared to the technological sublime. SV culture, for all its cachet and raw intelligence, runs on the basically same toxic individualism that rules in the rest of the US and prevents any real political left from forming. It՚s just brought to a more intense level here, where everyone thinks they are or should be an entrepreneur.
The class struggle is not much in evidence here; everyone՚s just trying to get rich by making their company awesome. Companies use obvious tactics to make it seem like everyone at the company is best buddies, teammates, all working hard and happily together towards the same goal. And to some extent this works! It always amazes me that companies, despite their petty politics and obvious social pathologies, actually get shit done. Whatever their flaws, they seem to solve the general problem of goal-directed cooperation.
Doing so always seems to require a communal myth of the company, and everyone has to take part in building up this myth and everyone has to occasionally make a public display to the effect that they are bought into it. This is just as true at both excellent and crappy companies, I suspect. My current company actually does do pretty well in both mythmaking and living up to its myth. Today they chose (by coincidence I՚m sure) to give a presentation on stock options. Can՚t complain about that; stock options actually do work, they do help align labor with the interests of the organization.
So companies build what I՚m going to call vertical solidarity, that is, solidarity and loyalty within a company, between its various ranks and groupings, and to the company itself. Let՚s distinguish that from horizontal solidarity, which is solidarity to your class, profession, or community.
Both of these have their necessary uses. Companies require vertical solidarity to operate; and society requires horizontal solidarity to keep from degenerating into a hellscape. But both forms of solidarity seem to be decaying over the last few decades or so.”
“Beyond that, the story explores how at every stage of Google’s evolution, it was assisted by networks closely aligned with the Pentagon and the US military intelligence community – and further that senior Google executives are members/delegates of the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum, a shadow network that convenes private defense contractors, investors, energy executives, IT experts, among others, sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to help coordinate the Pentagon’s strategies on “information operations.”
All this is not a result of some grand conspiracy, in which Google’s investors, for instance, are all ‘spooks.’ This isn’t the case – rather than being the result of a grand plan, much of this appears more to be the result of Brin being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of a Silicon Valley nexus which was being heavily courted by a range of Pentagon agencies in search of the next step in IT. From inception, Google was surrounded and supported by people closely aligned with the Pentagon and the Pentagon’s values, and connected through social networks with powerful actors in the US intelligence community. The Pentagon Highlands Forum played a key role in this process in terms of bringing people together that otherwise would not be connected, so that their expertise, funds, ideas and their own networks could be harnessed to be fed into the formation of information operations across the US military intelligence community.
Among the Forum’s many credits are its role in virtually writing the information warfare doctrines that led to the Pentagon’s adoption of mass surveillance at home and abroad, the definitions of irregular warfare and network centric warfare, and the conceptualisation of the war on terror as ‘The Long War’. Another important credit is that it is run, according to a DoD Inspector General report, by The Rendon Group (TRG) – the same firm contracted by the Pentagon to manufacture propaganda to justify the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. TRG played a lead role in drumming up false information on Saddam’s WMD. Apart from running the Highlands Forum process, TRG’s chief executive John Rendon is a longstanding member of the Forum. TRG also has access to the most secretive intelligence across the intelligence community, including NSA surveillance data for instance.
The story is starting to get noticed, though so far the mainstream media has remained studiously silent about what is in reality a huge story – clear and unimpeachable documentary evidence and testimony that Google’s Sergey Brin did receive a modest amount of seed-funding from the CIA and NSA, through their MDDS initiative, and that Brin had regular briefings with representatives of the US intelligence community from 96-98.”
“Investors and board members in addition to founders influence everything from how much equity goes to individual employees, to perks and play budgets (which often are not evenly distributed across the company), to the construction of departments, their relative importance, and the resources accordingly allocated to them. And not coincidentally the privileged departments, on this model, tend to be those occupied by people who look most like the founder and investors (at Facebook this was product engineering, which dominated other forms of engineering, which dominated non-engineering departments, which tended to have the largest degree of race and gender diversity).
But when Thiel is arguing for more women founders he isn’t just deflecting responsibility from himself and his fellow investors. He is also doing something else that I want to unpack: he is re-inscribing a form of hierarchical thinking that is part of the reason tech is such a mess regarding diversity. That is, when Thiel points to “more women founders” as a solution, he is asking women to become founders in order to possess a status that would allow Thiel to acknowledge women in tech at all. That is, all of the women who are currently working in tech, up and down the employee stack, many at companies that Thiel may be invested in, do not seem in Thiel’s formulation to really exist to him. They do not have a seat at the table. They are not acknowledged as agents of change, or as subjects of discrimination (for example, in the AMA, Thiel cited the Bay Area “housing crisis” as a worse problem than sexism in tech, not knowing that the housing crisis disproportionately affects women and people of color because of the wage discrimination marginalized people face at work).
That is, according to Thiel’s “women founders” logic, he can only imagine women as agents/subjects if they are the founder of a company. And this, in the end, is exactly why and how tech is such a diversity disaster: because there are so many ways powerful people in the industry have of ignoring that marginalized people are working at their companies and are experiencing multiple forms of discrimination right now. This is why many powerful people in tech can only conceive moves to “change” the industry in terms of magical futures like “more women founders” or “getting young girls to code”. The women working in the industry right now are being written off in favor of these magical futures, and as long as this is the case, the now of tech (whether the now is today or twenty years from today) will be unchanged.”
“Now, 80 years later, renderings of smart cities bear huge resemblance to the visions of Le Corbusier. Their images are eerily devoid of human beings. Rigid and measurable structures are almost always presented from a gods-eye-view. They worship the cult of Big Data – a kind of Cthulu Mythos4  The Cthulu ‘Mythos’ refers to the sprawling collection of stories by HP Lovecraft and successors about a race of god-like sea monsters worshipped by human cults. The mythos itself has its own cultish following. of the 2010s. While the machine was the savior of the age of Le Corbusier, Data would be its equivalent of today. Similarly as in the example of the German forestry project, the IT companies backing the smart city projects base their success on the ability to abstract, process and read data about our lives. They are so successful in fact, that much like with the German forestry scientists, Fordists, Taylorists, centralized nation states and master-planners that went before them, they seek to impress this supremely efficient abstraction back upon the world.
Much like Superstudio saw in the late 1960s, designers and architects now often find themselves in a position working – often not by choice – as indentured servants to the globe-straddling demi-gods of data. The consumer market is bloated and heaving with products and projects promising streams of data that will turn your sleeplessly hellish, austerity-riddled corpse-life into the stuff of Silicon Valley dreams. Cups that can measure nutritional content, armbands that tell if you are too fat, apps that can tell you if you have had the perfect amount of sleep. Not to mention, as I have been careful to avoid, the ceaseless and oppressive surveillance brought in to prop up the modern state under the auspices of anti-terror measures. And, at the top of our new Continuous Monument is of course the Smart City masterplan.”
“One of the great joys of not having to get changed out of my house clothing for several days is that it promotes a tendency to wallow. So let’s see what’s been in the news this week!
1. Even Bibi’s own spies admit that he was completely full of steaming shit with his ‘Iran has the bomb’ antics. Where did you hear that before? Oh yes, right fucking here.
2. What about when I said that HSBC was the bank of record for the shadow state? (Sidebar: Did you know it had its origins in the opium trade?) Nailed it.
3. The Pacific Pivot? China is playing some kind of real-life Starcraft.
4. The CIA created the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to stifle debate. Which is why I don’t use it and further evidence why anyone who refuses to look at parapolitics is a straight-up moron with zero experience of how power works.
You know the pathetic wasters I mean: the kind who thinks their boss is incompetent because she didn’t give him the promotion, or the kind who thinks ‘the government can’t do anything right’ because their bin men were late by a day to collect their garbage. (Been invaded recently? No? So I guess they can do one thing right, hey?) Or ‘the government can’t keep secrets’ as every file relating to Britain’s (at least) two decades of being run pretty much exclusively by paedophiles gets lost or suffers water damage. Impotent, socially-awkward, basement-dwelling failures, the lot of them. Yes, I feel strongly about this but I am also using the opportunity of being 100% correct with Bibi and Iran to gloat gloat gloat. I am pretty high right now. Nick and I recently discussed this on his podcast and it’s one of the failures of staying in Bob Wilson’s shallow end of the pool. There is in fact a lot of things we can know.”
“These areas of behavior require you to navigate freedom, but not necessarily with imagination.
You can unimaginatively eat the same food you grew up eating your whole life. You can take up running because most people around you take up running. You can save cash, buy a house or invest in an index fund because that’s what your neighbors are doing. You can follow the same career track as the majority of your college graduating class. As you gain power and authority, the pattern continues: you can unimaginatively set up the same kinds of organizations your ancestors did and and perpetuate the same patterns of governance you yourself endured.
And if you’re like most people, that is what you actually do. The structure of society does not enforce imitation and conformity. The human fear of self-actualization necessitates structures that enable imitation and conformity. There would be riots demanding such structures if they didn’t exist.
No government in history has ever had to deal with the problem of too many of its citizens wanting to live so imaginatively that institutions based on conformity and imitation become unsustainable. If anything, the problem has always been the reverse one: getting enough of the population to act with enough imagination to keep the institutions alive.”