Quote of the day—John Robb

The corporation, and particularly tech companies, are particularly bad organizations for warfare.  One reason is that they are too centralized.  In particular, the institution of the CEO is a grave weakness (a systempunkt in global guerrilla lingo).  The CEO’s centrality to the corporate network makes him/her a single point of failure for the entire organization.  Another is that executives in most of the western world are very soft targets.  Easy to find (Google and Google maps), easy to isolate, and easy to kill…

John Robb
March 2, 2015
It’s Open Season on the Tech Elite
[ISIS threatened the life of Jack Dorsey, a co-founder and Chairman of Twitter. I wonder if the gun free zones of corporations will protect CEO’s as well as they do schools. Will corporate security protect the upper management, their families, and corporate facilities and continue to insist the little people must be unarmed?

Interesting times…—Joe]

13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Robb

  1. I would agree that most CEO’s make an easy target but to be honest so do most politicians, with the exception of the top 4 or 5 at the federal level.

    Like politicians, they will make more CEO’s if they need them.

    • Politicians (easily controlled retards) are a dime per dozen. A CEO is at least presumed to have some special knowledge and skills.

      Depending on the role of the specific CEO then, replacing one could be as easy as buying a new car, or it could be near impossible, whereas a new politician can always be bought.

  2. My employer certainly insists on keeping the company facilities as disarmed victim zones. So far I haven’t felt a compelling need to disregard those rules.

  3. “Will corporate security protect the upper management, their families, and corporate facilities and continue to insist the little people must be unarmed?”

    I’d rephrase the question;
    Will corporate security attempt to protect the upper management, their families, and corporate facilities and continue to insist the little people must be unarmed?

    There is a world of difference between attempting to protect and actually protecting.

    To answer your question though; yes, with very few exceptions.

    The overwhelmingly common trend, and this will be written about extensively long after it’s too late, will be to fail to comprehend what the enemy is up to, who it is, and how far it has got, all the way up to and through your defeat. In other words; they’ll most likely never know what hit them, who hit them, where they came from or how they got there.

    We won’t know these things because we’re already programmed to avoid looking at them. The programing is already so successfully implemented that anyone attempting to point out to you the truth will cause you to get angry. You’ll attack them, putting them down as idiots, nuts and extremists.

    The way you’ll be able to tell if you’re reacting to programming is that you will become emotional. If reading this pisses you off, it is because you have been programmed to get pissed off at reading it. See how that works? It’s a sort of a reverse, or two-way, Kafkatrap and you’re in the middle of it with no way out.

  4. Someone mentioned today how Islamic State wants to bring Jihad to America, and how it doesn’t take much beyond two guys, a rifle and a nondescript car.

    • With servos and a camera it only takes one guy:

      . It’s a toy but this one isn’t.

      If you’re willing to go a little more “high tech” you don’t even need to be nearby:

      .

      While not a trivial project, it is also not terribly difficult either.

  5. You realize that Dorsey isn’t the CEO of Twitter? Some guy named Dick Costolo is.

    • It doesn’t say CEO, it says that he is chairman, and that appears to be correct.

  6. Interesting observation, but incomplete. Roberta and Gerry (above) have it right. I also think it depends on the company, and where that company is in its growth and development cycle.

    For example, a permanent removal of Steve Jobs from Apple at the right time might have completely altered what Apple has become (it might also have required simultaneous removal of Wozniak to be completely effective – consider the Sully years). Not having a Robert Oppenheimer or an Alan Turing would have changed the allies’ path during World War II, probably only by delaying the outcome (note that Turing and Churchill were separated by a lot of layers, and that Churchill’s overall performance was partially to substantially dependent upon Turing’s). Would we have gotten Ethernet without Boggs or Metcalfe, or automotive assembly lines without Henry Ford? Eventually, maybe in slightly different form. We’d surely have interchangeable parts without Eli Whitney, but probably not as soon.

    Remove the CEO of IBM, General Motors, AT&T or Wal-Mart today and you’d probably not notice the difference – another Universal Suit would step in to play business. I’d worry more about the futures of people a few to several tiers below the top – those are the people with the expertise and who actually get things done and make stuff work.

    • Indeed. So if you replace “CEO” by “founder” or “entrepreneur”, it does make sense.

Comments are closed.