“For how could mere talking or even a great force deter a handful of crazy, determined, and suicidal persons who seemingly operated outside of all of the norms of the liberal west?…
America’s antiquated military was not suited to fight such an enemy, for the enemy needed to be pursued not only in America, or in a handful of terrorist camps in Afghanistan, but to the very ends of the Earth.”
Peter Thiel, The Straussian Moment
I’ve been reading Christopher Andrews’ book, The Secret World: A History of Intelligence, and one of its most striking details is the nascency of institutional reconnaissance and the extent to which knowledge of past cryptographers was kept secret, namely in England, where the field entered modernity. While codebreaking techniques were nevertheless used to defeat Philip II’s Armada in 1588 and Napoleon’s navy at the start of the 19th century, the cryptographers of Bletchley Park – some two centuries later – were left in the dark regarding their ancestors’ cryptographic excellence which had saved their nation in more than one crisis.
Popular history has exalted confrontations like the Battle of Thermopylae that were successful because one side, the Persians in this case, had stronger intelligence capabilities, but it’s not only the Persians who were attuned to the powers of surveillance. Intelligence capabilities were the decisive factor for Scipio Africanus who crushed Hannibal and later razed Carthage to the ground; for the Israelites who scoped out the promised land of Canaan; and for the successful creation of the Allied forces’ “Phantom Army,” convincing the Nazis that D-Day was pure fiction.
While the WHO’s buffoonery has made it apparent that we don’t have a competent global health service, it’s possible that we have a more capable surveillance network that isn’t controlled by any government agency, but rather one that’s for hire. Palantir began as a way to fight back against the perceived threat of future Islamic terrorist organizations, but has since enlarged its sphere of influence, observing everything from biotech R&D to seal team six’s mission and eventual capture of Osama Bin Laden.
Sure, intelligence agencies do work alongside others; Interpol operates in over 194 different countries that share information over their I-24/7 communication system. Police agencies can upload the profiles of various criminals to be placed on a Red Notice and using highly specific analysis, can locate these personalities throughout the world. However, what is the bureaucrat’s option when the crimes become more complex and smarter criminals are leveraged with avant-garde technology – can a government agency, even a global one, stand a chance?
And it turns out that America doesn’t know how to wield its force abroad. Why was the War on Terror an abject failure by all accounts? Much like Richard Nixon’s War on Cancer, launched in 1971, it began as a doomed venture; resources and men were expended with no conception of an end plan – defense manufacturers rejoiced and their stock prices soared. Likewise, we might be 50 years closer to solving all forms of cancer, but we would be foolish to say that we’re close to a solution. After the dismal failure of the War on Terror, policymakers realized there was another path: indeed, the terror could stop once when we had pursued the enemy to the “very ends of the Earth;” the way to do so was in surveillance, tapping everyone’s phones, and not through sluggish military campaigns conducted in meatspace.
Deus Ex Machina
“There are those who deplore war, revolution, and rebellion. Manifestly, war is to be lamented, if it is waged to enthrone or to perpetuate wrong, but it expands to superlative grandeur if it is for the purpose of establishing justice and breaking the fetters of slavery.
In such cases every blow struck for the downtrodden sends thrills of joy throughout the world. The covering slave looks up and sees, however dimly, the dawn of a new era when he shall be free.”
Eugene Debs, Revolution and Rebellion vs. Stagnation
Every century or so, a major political rewiring occurs where party lines are redrawn or names change as a sign of the times. This was the case with England’s creation of a two-party government, the Whigs and Tories, in the late 17th century or when the Republicans became the party of big business in the nascent 20th century. History may go around in a circle as we keep reverting back to old behaviors, but like I gathered in Exporting Tyranny, technology has certainly changed the calculus of governance.
Frightened for their lives, those in power are holding onto the mast of the NYT or the UN as their ship slowly sinks deeper and deeper, carrying the excruciating weight of the Long 20th Century. Everything they write can be fact-checked – Project Veritas has ultimately relieved us of the notion that all reporting is born equal. The world’s populist movements are a sign that people are tired of listening to decayed institutions that often do more harm than good (E.g. the WHO’s claim to not wear masks). The power of the government is held by those who report its facts; thus the adage of never going to war with someone who can buy ink by the barrel. Even in the age of the internet, media sites are still imbued with godlike levels of persuasion. So, who can watch over the watchmen?
A governmental authority wouldn’t fit the mold; they’re too easily corruptible and susceptible to rent-seeking. I think that a company like Palantir and subsequent companies in this vein would be better suited as the world’s watchmen than current incumbents. I suspect that people don’t care that they’re being watched – they don’t want the NSA, CCP, or any of their draconian peers spying on them.
Perhaps the same is true with privatized corporations, but corporations have more safeguards against moral hazards than those of governments. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a private corporation like Palantir was actually in charge of our surveillance. Why would it better than the status quo?
Private corporations are accountable not only to shareholders, but to the board of directors and must follow SEC guidelines. On the other hand, the NSA is essentially accountable to nobody; after Snowden leaked the NSA files, President Obama’s subsequent statements demonstrated that he was unaware of much of the NSA’s powers, including the extent to which it spied on foreign leaders.
This nevertheless applies upstream: it’s impossible for normal people to become shareholders of institutions like the WHO or the UN, but anyone can buy shares of Apple, no matter how tiny. The American people were kept in the dark – whether it’s the NSA or the WHO – and unelected officials were given unprecedented levels of power over the economy and healthcare – something that seems more out of 1984 than reality.
Market forces force institutions to update their source code and adapt; Margaret Thatcher once said that “Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth,” and if we replace pennies with power, the saying can also be applied to government agencies. When it was visible that the NSA needed a overhaul, did we replace the agency – were there any severe reprecussions for the bureaucrats involved? Without the invisible hand’s decisive force, institutions turn into rent-seekers whereas that isn’t the case for a private company that in most cases, lives and dies by market forces.
The passage of corporate power is more transparent than that of the NSA or UN. Lee Kuan Yew, as one of history’s brightest ministers, realized the succession problem early on. Sortition doesn’t cut it – how do you incentivize the smartest people to go into government when corporations pay better and offer higher levels of prestige? Singapore was able to accomplish this through a combination of cultural respect for authority and a small, elite government – two qualities the western world lacks.
Certainly, Singapore retains enormous state capacity but by the percentage of state officials, they have the smallest bureaucracy relative to their peers. America prizes corporate success and their vitality above all else and as I previously mentioned, shareholders must be given access into choosing the next CEO. However, is it clear to why or how the head of the UN, NSA, or EU are selected? There is clearly no looking glass into these opaque halls of power.
Project Veritas has illustrated that people want the truth; our debates around new forms of media have always been fought first within the halls of surveillance. Massachusetts recently ruled that it was legal to film people without their consent: filming video is a form of free speech akin to having a two-person conversation.
When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, he did so by interviewing workers and sprinting back to his hotel room to corral his facts into a compelling narrative, a huge win for the progressive moment. But, this is a new world where fake news is rampant and the ones in power control what information we watch or read.
In the wake of the Michael Flynn files and the FBI’s deceit, the state has undoubtedly accelerated a shift to other forms of media and supervision; and if they’re not careful, they might soon lose control for good.
“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves,” as Machiavelli claimed, “One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”