The difference between threatening Bezos and warning him of future dangers

Being a white hat Machiavellian – in the original tradition of Machiavelli who published The Prince instead of keeping it a secret just for the elites – I’m open about my way of thinking here on

Let’s say I wanted to buy a house right next to a nice beach for surfing, but when looking at the property I notice a billionaire outside who says he’s also interested in buying the house. He’s much richer than I, so if he really wants the house he will get it. But my cousin Vinny is connected to the mob, so maybe the thought occurs to me: Hey, I can just subtly threaten the billionaire and then he will back off and I can buy the house!

However, I got average IQ, so I quickly realize that the billionaire is probably a high-functioning psychopath, which means that he’s fearless. Threats don’t work on him. In fact, he’s probably like me, a counterpuncher, so if I threaten him he will buy the house just to piss me off. Not that he will pay someone to push me in front of a bus. He’ll simply report me to the police.

My strategy will therefore not involve any intimidations. I will not insult his intelligence by trying to make “subtle threats”. Instead I will in a casual and friendly way tell him a real fact about the house. It’s right in the middle of an area often struck by hurricanes. I know that he will double-check what I’m saying and make his own independent risk assessment. It’s therefore no point lying about the actual future danger of buying the house. It’s better to mention that I’m considering buying a beautiful house that is more sheltered and on higher ground nearby. This other house is not perfect if you want to live on a beach and surf, but it’s almost the same location, and it’s a safer investment in the long run.

Returning to the moderate liberality of a constitutional democracy is safer than creating a libertine woke surveillance regime.

Here’s another example: if a zoologist says on a safari that there are some really dangerous animals out there which make it unsafe to run around and provoke them, will you think that the zoologist is giving you good advice based on facts, or will you reach the conclusion that he is subtly threatening you?

If you don’t want to draw the attention of rightwing terrorists is it smart to broadcast libertinism and LBGT content to all corners of the world, so that it’s guaranteed that all rightwing terrorists on all continents notice that you are provoking them? That’s only a smart move if you are a fearless person not worrying about your own safety, not caring about public safety, not being concerned about your workers being killed in a WMD attack.

I believe in free will, but after 25 years experience I know that hardcore radicals are captured by addictive ideas in such a degree that they will attack in a basically deterministic manner if you provoke them and they know they have a chance to get away with it afterward. Distributing libertine wokeness around the world inhabited by billions of cultural conservatives is worse than waving a red cloth in front of a bull, since libertine woke Big Tech in today’s world of 5th generation warfare has thousands of different unknown enemies all over the place.

A policy of “no negotiation with terrorists” is ineffective when terrorists take it for granted that Big Tech will not negotiate in any case, so they’ll just attack anonymously without warning, without taking credit for it or planting evidence leading the police to think another ideological group from a different continent did it.

But if the leaders of Big Tech are bored of civilian life and want to get involved in bloody military affairs and exciting intelligence services, then it’s likely they one day get what they wished for. And that’s just tragic, unnecessary and not a sign of wisdom. It’s not the behavior of statesmen.

However, if a Big Tech leader insists on it, and wants to waste time and energy on it, go ahead and play Jesus Angleton when looking for sinister motives hidden behind this website. In one way that’s reasonable, but only to a point where you start to yawn when reading my boring texts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s