What if I told you there is ample evidence to say projectiles with lethal effects beyond arm’s reach are as old as weapons themselves?
…researchers found that 14 of the 25 point fragments bore evidence of impact-related damage, animal residues, and wear features that strongly indicated that these points may have been used for hunting. Examination of the impact-related fractures and the distribution of the points indicated that these points may have been attached to handles to form projectile weapons and that these weapons were projected from a distance, most likely with a flexible spear-thrower or a bow. …the new Sibudu Cave site data may push back the evidence for the use of pressure flaking during the MSA to 77,000 years ago…
Darts were not only easier to transport but they penetrated hides with greater force, which likely killed animals quicker. In Alberta, darts were used to hunt bison, sheep, elk, deer, antelope, and smaller animals. Each species likely involved a different strategy and context of atlatl use.
If you really want to get more technical about it, archaeologists say things like the blowgun comes from the Stone Age… yet recent digs in Africa also found primitive Middle Stone Age tools used just 11,000 years ago (20,000 years later than previously thought to have been obsolete and deprecated).
Groups of ancient humans were shifting to newer tools at relative speed, not linearly. It’s actually very important to notice how groups were somewhat isolated and developing projectiles based on locality leading to domain shifts and imbalance in conflict.
I mean it’s kind of like a chicken and egg riddle to ask did the rock wall or throwing a rock come first?
Up until now, the history of military innovation has been about moving lethal effects to an intended victim with greater efficiency. In the Stone Age, a club was an inert object wielded by a human hand to create lethal injury. With the advent of metal, a sword became a more maneuverable and sharper instrument to create the same effect. Gunpowder and the advent of projectiles allowed for lethal effects beyond arm’s reach. Artillery increased the range and impact of lethality. Navies became ways of moving artillery over the oceans to bring lethal effects to other ships and to the shore through fire support missions. Aircraft carriers were invented to support aircraft that in turn delivered munitions with lethal effects. And so on.
That phrase “gunpowder and the advent of projectiles allowed for lethal effects beyond arm’s reach” is just so strange as to be unbelievable. It reminds me of how wrong early theories about Easter Islanders holding weapons were, given they were in fact more like hoes or shovels.
Everyone studies the 1415 Agincourt projectile battle, right? And the whole debate about the ethics of crossbows because too automated any peasant could use one versus a highly trained archer… all long predates this “advent of projectiles” sentence that starts with gunpowder.
It doesn’t look like a typo because it is a linear progression by the futurist. Club then sword then boom you have a bullet and a gun with powder? No. Instead imagine a line from the Stone Age to today for projectiles, a line from the Stone Age to today for hand-held weapons… and even parallel lines for artillery and navies instead of a serial one.
From there this futurist, based on what feels like a very weak presentation of history (falsely linear, and falsely handheld first then projectile 10,000s of years later), presents what he calls the next chapter:
Now comes the discontinuity. In 1999, a book called Unrestricted Warfare was published by two Chinese colonels from the People’s Liberation Army. Its take-home message was that all elements of an advanced society could now be considered as means of waging war. We see this visible now in the war of the meme, disinformation, kompromat, lawfare and cyber threats to key infrastructure, to name but a few.
Use of all means of waging war is by no means a new concept. WWI is probably the best foundational reading for “all means of waging war” in our modern context, particularly Woodrow Wilson’s use of propaganda and nationalizing communications as well as German military spy infiltration of British colonies to force fractures and revolution.
It’s just so strange to see this already dated concept labeled “modern” or “future” war, stranger to see it attributed to 1999 Chinese authors, let alone see that earlier false linear history in the windup.
…born in Dayton, Ohio, on June 27, 1872. His parents, Joshua Dunbar and Matilda Murphy Dunbar, were married six months earlier, on December 24, 1871. Both slaves prior to the Civil War, Joshua Dunbar escaped and served in both the 55th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment and the 5th Massachusetts Colored Cavalry Regiment before coming to Dayton…. Many of their experiences of slave and plantation life influenced Dunbar’s later writings.
A poem about authenticity and power in America:
We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,—
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.
Why should the world be over-wise,
In counting all our tears and sighs?
Nay, let them only see us, while
We wear the mask.
We smile, but, O great Christ, our cries
To thee from tortured souls arise.
We sing, but oh the clay is vile
Beneath our feet, and long the mile;
But let the world dream otherwise,
We wear the mask!
Brilliant history/comedy by The Amber Ruffin Show explaining why Americans desperately need a White History Month:
I do feel the need to point out her citation of Lincoln, while true, evades the important context of his speech.
First, after being repeatedly fraudulently bashed by his political opponents as someone who would dare to marry blacks to whites (narratives about protecting white women from black men is a long-time propaganda method), Lincoln said he was racist enough to not do the things he was being accused. It wasn’t his best moment to be sure and there’s no excusing it, but you have to understand he was saying in his experience he didn’t see whites and blacks as equals. He still was an abolitionist, just a racist one.
Second, this attitude changed dramatically after he became President. Like President Grant, who often reflected on where he had made mistakes and who worked to overcome and amend them, Lincoln came to regard blacks as equals. So the context is really a terrible defense he used in the heat of contest to prove he was worthy of votes even by racist Americans, which reverses completely into a story of him emancipating slaves and (through new experiences) finally describing blacks as equal to whites.
If you want to talk about disinformation in America, “Jaws” is one of the best examples of how a simple story based on a false fear can do exceptional long lasting harm.
It is very difficult to get sharks back to what they are, correctly seen as loving and affectionate.
An example of shark reality is from 1959 to 2010 the TOTAL number of fatalities was 26 in America (0.5/year average). Only 1 in a 3.7 million chance.
For an obvious comparison in risk homeostasis, lightning data shows a 37.9/year average. That average means 1 in 180,746 Americans will be killed by lightning. And that actually is less likely even than being killed by a dog, which is 1 in 118,776!
Ok, to be fair American citizens killed by anything means we take the population total and divide by recorded deaths. The resulting number really shouldn’t be substituted for a probability because factors creep in.
Do you swim every day with sharks? Things like that make better factoring for probability.
Speaking of swimming with sharks then, here is another example of shark reality, as written by Sune Nightingale:
On a dive one day Cristina Zenato noticed a hook inside a shark’s mouth. In the end she just stuck her hand in and pulled it out. From that moment on the shark changed her behaviour and would show up on the dive and allow Cristina to stroke her, and would give Cristina a little nudge on the hip as if to say “hey I’m here”
Then other sharks started showing up wanting hooks removed…..Cristina now has a box of over 300 removed hooks.
“This is a wild animal and she’s giving me full trust…….It is something to be absolutely in awe of no matter how many times it happens …..what I developed is an appreciation for their vulnerability.”
Really changes your perception of sharks doesn’t it to see one being so cuddly and kind?
Again the odds of an American being killed by shark are about 1 in 3.7 million for everyone in the general population. It’s super remote on a generic predictive scale prone to error.
Yet here we see the odds of being killed by a shark actually even MORE remote, reaching towards zero for someone swimming with them constantly. They seem to love her and trust her.
The author of Jaws expressed his deep regrets for writing such a dangerous fiction, but obviously it did little to change the disinformation effect of his book and the movie.
“Spielberg certainly made the most superb movie; Peter was very pleased,” Wendy Benchley told Associated Press. “But Peter kept telling people the book was fiction, it was a novel, and that he took no more responsibility for the fear of sharks than Mario Puzo took responsibility for the Mafia,” she said, referring to Puzo’s screenplay and novel “The Godfather.”
“Jaws” was “entirely fiction,” Peter Benchley repeated in a London Daily Express article that appeared last week.
“Knowing what I know now, I could never write that book today,” said Benchley, who also co-wrote the screenplay for “Jaws.” “Sharks don’t target human beings, and they certainly don’t hold grudges.”
Americans target sharks and hold grudges against them. Not the other way around.
Nazi POW during WWII in rural America are said to have been given a great life such as somewhat free access to roam, and in some cases even were taken in by families as helpful labor.
They also worked jobs on nearby farms. ‘If it hadn’t been for the POWs, a lot of the crops would have rotted in the fields,’ May said. William Barnes remembers as a young boy, working alongside POWs near Ottawa. ‘And you never worried about your own safety?’ KMBC’s Kris Ketz asked Barnes. ‘Oh, no. No, and it never occurred to me or my parents either. They were just very nice people. They were very happy,’ Barnes said. […] ‘I think there was just, they could see that they were of European origins and had much more seemingly in common with people out here,’ said Virgil Dean, a Kansas historian. It was a complicated time but at least here, a world at war finally ended with enemies no longer. …your best allies,’ May said.
Nazis as “best allies” of America, and this was during WWII?
Rural Americans hated the Japanese. There is no way this would have been the same story given the racism of America. Yet somehow Nazis were described as “best” and “seemingly in common” because they all shared their “European origins”.
Notice the problem?
Now you might say soldiers in the Nazi military were just regular guys who didn’t believe in Nazism, to which I’ll point you back to why this wouldn’t work for Japanese POW. There is more to this story than just whether or not a POW is a nice guy.
When people ask why resistance cells didn’t seem to rise up and continue to attack American soldiers after WWII, consider for a minute whether the defeated Nazis were instead seen as being on the same side and taken in as allies instead of enemies.
In other words, look at how America’s sudden rise of pro-Nazism after 1948 (e.g. Dixiecrats, rejection of civil rights) manifested in Confederate flags suddenly waving again after being completely obscure/ignored before WWII.
August 18, 1940 a RAF pilot was training in an unarmed plane when he was attacked during the battle of Britain. He countered by ramming the Germans, killing all as he sacrificed himself.
[Nazis] caught sight of the [RAF Avro] Anson flown by Sgt Hancock and gave chase. Reports from ground observers at the time say that the German plane turned towards the Anson and its front gunner opened fire on it. They also say that Hancock turned off his landing lights and slowed his plane, allowing the German aircraft to overfly him. Then, once the Heinkel’s pilot was committed to the manoeuvre, Hancock climbed, ramming the German plane out of the sky.
Add to the list of President Grant’s already amazing legacy, easily being one of the best if not the best President in history, his legacy of environmentalism mixed with civil rights.
The first rangers in America included blacks, known at the time as Buffalo Soldiers.
The US Army assigned them protective duty in newly created “national parks” before a National Park Service existed.
Approximately 500 Buffalo Soldiers were stationed throughout Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant parks to conserve wildlife from poachers, as well as build access routes.
It was in the mid-1890s — a period noted for the “Wheelmen” advocacy in creating roads — that bicycles were explored as transportation even for the US Army.
Thus, as it was just pointed out to me by Bilal A. Salaam, in the earliest days of modern cycling a team of eight black soldiers rode the American mountains.
Fort Missoula’s Buffalo Soldier Bicycle Corps in the 1890s rode Yellowstone as well as a jaw-dropping 1,900-miles from Fort Missoula, Montana, to Saint Louis, Missouri in 40 days with few roads.
Major General Nelson A. Miles, as Army Commander-in-Chief, expressed his interest by recommending that one full regiment be equipped with bicycles in 1892, and that existing troops at different posts around the country use bicycles to obtain a thorough knowledge of their own country, especially the topographical features, conditions of the roads, sources of supplies, and all information of military importance.
On May 12, 1896, Fort Missoula’s 2nd Lieutenant James A. Moss received permission to organize the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, the first of its kind in the country. Moss, a native of Louisiana and a West Point graduate, was an avid cyclist who set out to thoroughly test the practicality of the bicycle for military purposes.
The 1897 Spalding bikes were simple yet very practical and would even hold their own today:
Moss contacted the A. G. Spalding Company, who provided military bicycles at no cost. The Corps, consisting of eight black enlisted men, soon was riding in formation, drilling, scaling fences up to nine-feet high, fording streams, and pedaling 40 miles a day. Each bicycle carried a knapsack, blanket roll, and a shelter strapped to the handlebar. A hard leather frame case fit into the diamond of each bicycle and a drinking cup was kept in a cloth sack under the seat. Each rider carried a rifle (first slung over the back, later strapped to the horizontal bar) and 50 rounds of ammunition.
Not only did these Americans handle self-sufficiency with intentionally stretched supply routes (100 mile distance set between resupply stations, and carrying only 2-days food), on challenging terrain, they also navigated egregiously hostile racism and discrimination.
In the face of incredible challenges, in the awesome legacy of Grant’s best ideas, American men who rode the first organized American mountain bikes in history earned their reputation for courage and skill.
Another ride was planned for 1898 all the way to San Francisco to promote even more awareness of black soldiers, yet it was cancelled instead for unclear reasons. Was there fear that opposition might arise to the “immoral war” of 1845 that landed California in American hands, or the genocide of non-whites that followed?
Some believed demonstrations like a grueling ride to San Francisco, or even serving in combat roles as soldiers in America’s “expansionist” pursuits, would gain respect and social entry for blacks:
…many African Americans felt a good military showing by Black troops in the [1899 Spanish-American War in the] Philippines would reflect favorably and enhance their cause in the United States.
The black soldiers, like their impressive mountain biking, indeed ended up playing an outsized heroic role in the Spanish-American war:
“If it hadn’t been for the black cavalry, the Rough Riders would have been exterminated.” Five black soldiers of the 10th Cavalry received the Medal of Honor and 25 other black soldiers were awarded the Certificate of Merit.
Yet this did not improve barriers to civil rights. Quite the opposite.
These American heroes ran directly into American racism. Instead of celebration and expansion, the backlash of resentment from white insecurity grew against these blacks who ventured to demonstrate their value and capabilities — success in America meant risk of being punished and relegated to lesser roles.
Shortly after the end of the Spanish-American War a decline began in the status of Black serviceman. White sentiment ran against Black soldiers; too much apparently had been made of their success, causing them to forget their subservient “place.” Even Theodore Roosevelt, who had been a supporter of Black soldiers, reversing his earlier praise, stated that Black soldiers were peculiarly dependent upon their white officers and Black noncommissioned officers generally lacked the ability to command and handle the men like the best classes of whites. Roosevelt apparently was bowing to the pressures of public opinion.
At the close of the century, however, Black servicemen had become impatient with the long-standing policy of limited opportunities, discrimination, and paternalistic white officers. Chaplain Steward’s comments revealed the deepening dissatisfaction of Black servicemen: “The colored American soldier, by his own prowess, has won an acknowledged place by the side of the best trained fighters with arms,” he said. “In the fullness of his manhood he has no rejoicing in patronizing paean, the colored troops fought nobly, nor does he glow at all when told of his “faithfulness” and devotion to his white officers, qualities accentuated to the point where they might well fit an affectionate dog.”
The military refused to meet the growing expectations of its Black soldiers.
Some in America basically refused to end their anti-democratic rebellion — extending Civil War — especially as blacks proved to be equal in every way to whites who clearly felt a sense of loss from any gains made by their fellow citizens.
A decade later in 1912, Woodrow Wilson narrowly became President with just 42% of the vote and immediately set about denigrating much of Grant’s legacy — using the White House to revive the KKK and terrorize blacks as well as remove blacks from service in government and the military so they would be unable to defend America from men like Woodrow Wilson.
Such a precedent by the Buffalo Soldiers in resilience, resourcefulness, park management and environmental stewardship continues to this day, although these first mountain bikers in American history have mostly been ignored or forgotten because of racism and the color of their skin.
Whitman tells us of Nazi efforts to use American racist laws to help draft their Nuremberg Laws. It makes sense. So let’s explore a bit more.
Woodrow Wilson’s time in office (1912-1921) was clearly responsible for the rise of a “Second Empire” of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), so was America even more of a blueprint for Nazi Germany?
Such a virulently racist President, with virtually no representative experience (he was elected to New Jersey office then almost immediately ran for President and was elected by just 42%) advocated for a “strong executive” who would bypass what he termed “inefficiencies” of representative government.
Wilson’s racism wasn’t the matter of a few unfortunate remarks here or there. It was a core part of his political identity, as indicated both by his anti-black policies as president and by his writings before taking office. It is completely accurate to describe him as a racist and white supremacist and condemn him accordingly.
That’s a pretty bold start.
And the following changes he made all should look familiar to anyone studying Nazi Germany:
President Wilson made it a requirement to include a photograph with any application for a federal position, to facilitate the exclusion of blacks from government jobs. Wilson pushed for segregation of federal workers, systematically demoted black civil servants, and claimed nothing could be done to improve the situation of blacks in the country. He refused to meet with black leaders, to appear at black conferences on race issues, or to publicly denounce lynching.
Prices shot up into double digits, and then came a potent economic recession that lasted three years. He accepted the suppression of civil liberties by his notorious attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer. His government nationalized many private industries, including the telegraph, telephone and railroad industries, along with the distribution of coal. Race riots erupted in numerous cities that claimed nearly 150 lives in two years.
Palmer was notorious because of arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and immigrant deportations, all without hearings or trials…some of the worst violations of civil rights and freedom of speech until Trump repeated them.
1919 was the devastating Red Summer such that by 1921 the Tulsa Massacre (white supremacists fire bombing an entire black neighborhood and building a KKK meeting hall on the ruins) was how the WWI black veterans were viciously attacked under Wilson’s “Second Empire”.
Many Black veterans were mistreated, and in some cases, attacked while in uniform. Lynchings increased from 64 in 1918 to 83 in 1919. Membership in the revived Ku Klux Klan, reborn after D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation [screened in the White House, using President Wilson’s words and promoted under President Wilson’s name], skyrocketed into the millions by the early 1920s.
I don’t think we can so neatly tie all the Nazi plans for disinformation and violent centralization of power to Wilson’s administration alone, however.
Goebbels points out at least two other Americans he was heavily influenced by…
Bernays who published a 1928 propaganda guide, related to his work in the WWI U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI)
Ford’s anti-Semitic disinformation and hate publications
The key to this story then really becomes Americans just prior to 1934, where the ends of the spectrum collide (Wilson’s racist legacy thins as America finds itself in conflict with him/Germany in a whole new way).
Hitler created a Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda in March 1933. This was their version of Wilson’s CPI, where Bernays worked on messaging such as an official government “white knight” portrayal of American forces.
In case the “Knights Templar” and Crusader imagery here isn’t obvious enough, we find the same propaganda today in Russian white supremacist “morale” patch stores frequented by hate group militias.
I guess this just shows how even Bernays still ties directly back to Wilson, while also to today’s Nazis. Oh well.
Roosevelt in 1934 established an FCC (the opposite model to Wilson/Nazi centralization) to help neutralize any further Nazi military intelligence operations (e.g. tamp down pro-Hitler “America First” cells). Roosevelt was acutely aware after an insane 1933 “Business Plot” to replace US gov with Nazism.
More to the point, experts in America had warned Roosevelt to keep WWI people like Wilson’s Bernays out of the WWII information warfare efforts. This is how far America had diverged under Roosevelt, as the Nazis were doing the exact opposite by bringing the teachings from Wilson’s Bernays into full force.
Justice Felix Frankfurter, in a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, described Bernays and Ivy Lee as “professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of the foolishness, fanaticism and self-interest.” A sociologist, E. T. Hiller, opined that “such widespread efforts to manipulate public opinion constitute a financial burden, a perversion of intellectual candor, and a menace to political sanity.”
How about Henry Ford then?
If you read Goebbels carefully you’ll find that he says he wasn’t so antisemitic until after reading Henry Ford’s publications on the matter.
What were the relations between Mr. Henry Ford and President Woodrow Wilson? Mr. President, as my friend from Alabama would say, this is a serious question. Did not Henry Ford give $30,000 to Wilson’s campaign fund during the last month of the struggle in 1916, and do so at the personal request of Mr. Tumulty? It is so stated in this paper published by Henry Ford’s ex-partner, and it was published in September, and now we are nearly at December, and nobody has denied it. Will anybody now deny it? It is a pretty good time to make a denial.
[…nobody denies it…]
Did that liberal gift have anything to do with keeping Henry Ford’s son out of the Army when so many hundreds of thousands of other men’s sons were in the Army, thousands of them fighting, suffering, dying in Flanders and in France, while Edsel Ford was continuing to make tin Lizzies to run against golden chariots?
Mr. President, what else did Henry Ford get out of Wilson’s honest and patriotic administration? It was reported he got $14,000,000 for the construction of Eagle boats which were either useless or not constructed; and when that fact was brought home to Henry Ford he said he was going to return the money to Uncle Sam. I was anxious to have a front seat and see Henry do that, but he never has done it.
The Ford Motor Co., according to the War Department, received from Wilson’s administration $249,000 for tools which were never delivered. I suppose Henry has them yet. He also has the money, unless he spent it on this election.
The Ford Motor Co., for tractors: Number delivered, none. Amount paid, $1,299,000. Where are those tractors? They might be converted into golden chariots, for all I know.
The Ford Motor Co., for spare parts: Number delivered, none. Amount paid, $5,517,000. that leaves out the Eagle boats.
Welp. Looks like Henry Ford also was quite the Wilson man, soaking up loads of war money and delivering nothing as a form of forcing neutrality by gaming the supply chain.
For an interesting angle on this, German military intelligence also during this time was setting up shell companies that took American taxpayer money for supplies and delivered nothing (as a means of laundering money to support Germany, but also preventing American goods from reaching Britain).
In that sense, Wilson (and Ford) not only were laying a blueprint for Nazi Germany, they were perhaps in 1919 intentionally setting a very specific stage to create the antisemitic corrupt state they had tried to force on America.
America in fact drifted away from the early precepts of Nazism (not easily, as Roosevelt in 1933 had a pitched battle to win) while Germany drifted towards it…
In 1938 (the year of Kristallnacht, a Nazi attack that shook even pro-Nazi men like Hearst into joining team America against fascism) Henry Ford accepted Nazi Germany’s Grand Cross of the German Eagle as an award for his anti-Americanism.
It does make one think that had Wilson lived longer he may have, like Ford, seen Nazi Germany being what he had envisioned for America. While both men claimed to be anti-war, the record shows they more were pro-tyranny and anti-American.
Today still seems strange to write these things out loud, given how some Americans don’t admit yet how horrible Wilson was to Americans. Yet, it’s a fact that Nazi Germany was a result of Wilson’s foreign as well as domestic policies in more ways than we usually talk about.
Microsoft is now out to prove that Bastiat’s 1850 broken window fallacy (Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas) is actually a great way to make money! (In other words, profit from waging expensively self-destructive cyber wars.)
In a real-life example, scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki has often claimed that a corporation polluting a river adds to a country’s GDP. If the river has become polluted, an expensive program will be required to clean it up. Residents may choose to buy more expensive bottled water rather than cheaper tap water.
Suzuki points to this new economic activity, which will raise GDP, and claim that the GDP has risen overall in the community, although the quality of life has decreased.
Suzuki, however, forgot to take into account all the decreases in GDP that will be caused by the water pollution precisely because the economic losers are more difficult to identify than the economic winners. We don’t know what the government or the taxpayers would have done with the money had they not needed to clean up the river. We know from the Broken Window Fallacy that there will be an overall decline in GDP, not a rise.
That’s right. An 1850 economic theory predicted attempts by Microsoft to fraudulently make money with broken WINDOWS.
In the early 1990s Bill Gates infamously told his lead engineers and architects he would leave security out of the first release of Windows NT 3.5 (and I remember it well!) because safety slowed down their release schedules.
In the late 1990s Bill Gates also infamously told the SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) security teams (and I again remember well, hearing it directly from them!) that he had no interest in adding security to Windows after the fact because it wouldn’t make him a billion dollars.
Microsoft was willfully pumping out known defective windows expected to break.
Yeah he pushed NO SECURITY long and hard because he demanded broken Windows would bring him higher margins.
Speaking of long and hard, when I was in college my economics professor described to his students the Gates family way of thinking in terms of Soviet corruption (and this is allegedly a true story, as he was an expert in Soviet apocryphal economics):
When window production success was measured on tonnage generated, the windows came out so hard/thick none would fit in any buildings. So when window production success was shifted to measure square meters generated, the windows came out so long/thin none ever made to to the buildings without breaking.
Since the inputs didn’t change, and corruption allowed the factory operators to be lauded based on simplistic metrics, they gamed the system for selfish profit and screwed everyone else.
What was Microsoft Windows really measured on? It wasn’t security (preventing breaches), that’s for sure, and so decades of broken Windows have flowed and flowed and flowed into buildings around the world (especially America) being breached over and over and over again.
The SolarWinds disaster is like a ridiculously obvious return to Soviet-era economic lessons (if not 1850s early industrialization) for very basic supply-chain safety.
Microsoft (MSFT) is officially a cybersecurity giant. For the first time on Tuesday, Microsoft disclosed revenue from its various security offerings as part of its quarterly earnings — $10 billion over the last 12 months.
That amounts to a 40% year-over-year jump in the growing security business, making up roughly 7% of the company’s total revenue for the previous year.
“We waited in some sense [until] this milestone to show the depth, the breadth, the span of what we are doing,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told Yahoo Finance… [following] Microsoft’s involvement in uncovering the breadth of the massive SolarWinds cyber attack in December, which hit private companies like cybersecurity firm FireEye (FEYE) and government agencies including the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments, as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.
It’s very sad and so very unfortunate how Microsoft pushed out Windows that break and now is so shamelessly pleased to announce it’s making all its money repairing them. Why aren’t the Window repairs paid directly out of Gates’ fortunes?
In reality the cost of repairing Windows is dragging the economy down, while Gates gets richer.
Deploying broken Windows in the first place is a shameless tax on companies, which all would be far better off buying safe systems and then spending “fix tax” money elsewhere because it’s not needed (broken window fallacy as Bastiat warned us so long ago).
Related: a Harvard thesis in the mid-1990s (same time Gates was pushing out broken windows) argued apartheid can be very profitable (for fascists who stand to profit from those forced to live in fear with broken windows)
Kobach wrote about a white police state as good for business. He seemed to think beating down non-white populations (those seeking equal rights with white police) was how to push wealth into white hands just as a matter of “peace keeping”.
Now go back to the start of this post and tell me if you can see the “where do you want to go today” slogan (perhaps a longer version of “get out”) in that image from 1907 rioting white supremacists in Canada, breaking all the windows…