#Palmer Luckey | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wartakes · 7 months

Text

Clear and Present Danger 2: Mr. Musk's Wild Ride

In this essay, we find that when it comes to U.S. National Security and asking the question of what the greatest threats to it are, the answer is the one comes up when asking most questions about problems when you're on the Left: "it's the Capitalism, dummy."

If you’re on the Left, you probably don’t need to be told that capitalism is the greatest threat to our collective survival and freedom. Even if the world isn’t going to “end” in the doomer sense of things, if immensely rich and powerful capitalists are allowed to continue acting with impunity to amass further wealth and power at the expense of all else (including our lives), the future we can “look forward” to is a truly grim and dystopian one, in which the planet and its climate have been significantly altered, countless people are dead as a result, and those who aren’t have their neck trapped under the metaphorical (or literal, in many cases) boot of authoritarianism.

That being said, that long-term threat is not the only thing we have to worry about. Aside from the long term threat posed by capitalists to the world and its people if they continue to get their way unimpeded, we’re now seeing more pressing and immediate threats to the lives and security of many around the globe from their actions more. I’m not just talking about exploitation through trade and industry or the more traditional ways in which capitalists threaten lives and livelihoods around the globe, but through the direct involvement of prominent capitalists into the business of war and statecraft in a way that hasn’t been seen before.

Even if I was not as far left as I am now, as a national security professional I would be hard pressed to look at billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk (who will be something of the main character for most of this essay), examine his involvement in US. national security, look at his actions to date, and not feel at least uncomfortable if not extremely concerned or even threatened. When I look at Elon Musk wearing my leftist cap, I see a threat to the world coming from a dipshit, self-absorbed, fascist megalomaniacal capitalist; when I look at Elon Musk while wearing my NatSec cap, I see a clear and present danger not only to the national security of the United States, but to the security of states and peoples across the world. In my world – the world of security or defense or war or whatever you want to call it – under the right circumstances, capitalists of an ilk like Elon Musk could make decisions and take actions that could kill and maim large swathes of people and devastate communities and lives.

Regardless of whether or not you call yourself a “leftist” and (if you are, in fact, a leftist) regardless of how you may feel about certain states and governments and the wars they are or may end up fighting, you should be worried about hyper-wealthy, hyper-ideological capitalists with questionable politics and ideology and allegiances getting close to the levers of military power in any substantial form. In the remainder of this essay, I intend to lay out why that’s the case.

Elon Musk The Strange Case of the World War III That Wasn't

Elon Musk has been having a bit of a time lately and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t enjoying it immensely and hoping it only gets worse for him.

Even when his bare minimum veneer of respectability began to scratch off years ago – even as his ideas became more and more dumb and outlandish and his opinions more and more questionable, he seemed shielded from any substantive negative consequences. He was surrounded by what I’ve heard referred to as “the Elon Musk reality distortion field.” It didn’t matter what he did; the money and adoration seemed to keep flowing from all corners with no end in sight, and he could convince anyone and everyone that he was a genius that could do no wrong.

That state of affairs now seems to be very gradually, tentatively, changing. Finally.

It seemed like it started going downhill the moment Elon Musk bought Twitter – something he was essentially forced to do legally after probably embarking upon it as a bit. As he’s proceeded to run Twitter (I refuse to call it “X”) into the ground while almost certainly mainlining ket and God knows what else, he only seems to have become more unhinged. Every action he takes seems to be based around appealing to the absolute worst kind of people from the darkest corners of Twitter: extreme libertarian venture capitalists, slimy right-wing grifters, foreign dictators and aspiring dictators, and out and proud fascists and anti-Semites.

It now appears that Musk’s desperate attempts to get the cross section of 8chan membership that actually pays for a Blue Check to like him may actually, potentially, have some real life consequences for him. And it all started several weeks ago, revolving around a snippet from the billionaire’s forthcoming biography revolving around the ongoing war against Ukraine by Russia.

In addition to aid of various types being provided by the United States and its allies and partners, Musk had been providing Ukraine with access to Starlink – the space-based internet service provided by SpaceX, which is perhaps his only company he’s currently involved in that is actually successful. Musk’s provision of Starlink to Ukraine (which began days after the war started in February of 2022) was not without controversy, with Musk essentially threatening to cut it off at one point due to lack of payment before later relenting (a deal was eventually struck for funding through DoD). But that turned out to only be the tip of the Ukraine Starlink iceberg.

In the segment quoted from Musk’s biography, Ukraine had been purportedly planning a sneak attack on the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet at its home base in Sevastopol in Crimea (which had been annexed illegally by Russia from Ukraine back in 2014). This attack was to make use of seagoing drones, the control of which at a distance would be enabled by Starlink. These small, hard to spot, remotely operated vessels would get the drop on the Russian warships – with Russian vessels already having been damaged by Ukrainian maritime drones on several occasions. A cunning plan.

There was only one problem: Starlink wouldn’t actually allow that to happen.

Initially, Musk’s Biographer – Walter Isaacson – asserted in the Washington Post (which was then later quoted by CNN) that Musk had Starlink “turned off” for the Ukrainians on purpose as the attack was undertaken, making their subs lose connection offshore of Crimea and be rendered useless. Since the initial bombshell, there’s been a series of denials, excuses, and ass-coverings from both sides of the story that has only muddled it further. Musk asserts that Starlink was never activated over Crimea to begin with and he had simply denied an emergency request from the Ukrainian government to extend Ukraine’s Starlink coverage. Issacson then walked back his claims in line with Musk’s, instead saying the Ukrainians only thought that Starlink was enabled out to Ukraine and then asked for it to enable their attack after finding out it wasn’t – only then to be denied by Musk. Most of the mainstream media coverage has since been edited to reflect Issacson’s claims (while still making reference to the original assertions in some cases), but I feel like things have only been made more confusing and contradictory than clear.

Regardless of which side of the story on the Ukraine Starlink debacle that you believe, there’s one aspect that is present in both the original and walked-back versions of the tale: Musk specifically denied Ukraine the ability to use Starlink in their planned surprise attack because he feared that the attack would be the equivalent of “Pearl Harbor”, potentially leading to World War III (with SpaceX being partially responsible, in his eyes). Musk was so concerned about this potential World War III sparking attack, that he not only made calls to the Ukrainians and to US. President Joe Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan, he also apparently was in contact with the Russian government – something that I’m sure had a great many Western intelligence agencies pricking up their ears when they found out.

The fear of Russia’s war against Ukraine sparking World War III is reflective of Musk’s adherence to his own form of “longtermism” – an ideology common among hyper-rich (and hyper-weird) capitalists of his type that centers on ensuring the long term survival and happiness of the human race (at least, its long term survival in a way its adherents find acceptable). Such a worldview no doubt dovetails well with Musk’s own personal “only I can fix it” Messiah complex. At any rate, his fears of the Ukrainian “Pearl Harbor” attack causing a major war between the United States and Russia turned out to be (surprise surprise) complete and utter bullshit after Ukraine launched a different kind of surprise attack on Sevastopol, making use of British-supplied Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles that all but destroyed both a Russian Navy landing ship as well as a Kilo-class diesel attack submarine (one capable of firing Kalibr cruise missiles back at Ukraine, no less). As you’re guessing by now, since no nukes have popped off since that attack, no World War III broke out as a result of that attack.

Since we haven’t all died in an Oppenheimer style nuclear firestorm (yet), and even as the story about the denial of Starlink coverage has been walked back, Musk has now faced increasing criticism and scrutiny from not just from online commentators, but from the US. government itself. The Chair of the US. Senate Armed Services Committee – Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island – announced not long after the Ukraine Starlink bombshell dropped that his committee would be “aggressively probing” Musk’s and SpaceX’s “outsized role” when it comes to providing space services to the US. government and warning that no “private citizen, can have the last word when it comes to US. national security.” I mostly agree with Senator Reed here (though my reasons for thinking the same thing as him would only partially overlap with his reasons and I think we’d both be worlds apart in what we ultimately want and how far we’d be willing to go for it, but that’s neither here nor there and I can get into that more later).

Will this Senate probe go anywhere and lead to any meaningful consequences for Musk? Has his reality bending force field finally weakened enough to the point he may actually have to experience the “finding out” end of “fucking around?” I’m still somewhat skeptical but I’m not prepared to say “no” because stranger things have happened and we’ve already been seeing a wave of “finding out” lately. It’s not implausible Musk may finally face some real consequences of some kind for something he’s done, even if those consequences aren’t as harsh as any of us would like and aren’t for EVERYTHING he’s done as opposed to only some things that make the state feel uneasy. All I know is no matter how it turns out, it’ll be funny to watch – kind of like with Trump’s numerous indictments and trials.

Likewise, regardless of what happens with Elon Musk in this specific case, the right questions are not being asked about the potential threats that individuals with outsized power and influence – coupled with questionable political viewpoints – could have not just on US. national security but on international relations and international security as a whole. When those questions are examined in greater depth and breadth, the threats both at home and abroad become far more stark.

The Real Threat From Within

It is commonly said by various foreign policy officials and talking heads that the world is entering or risks entering a new Cold War, centered on the United States and China. I would argue we’re entering less of a Cold War in the sense of how the last one went, and more of a new era of multi-polar great power competition that is more similar to the decades prior to World War I (I’ll leave it to you whether that makes you feel better or worse about our current situation). No matter how you look at it, we’re entering a period of far more tense relations and mutual suspicion among great powers and their respective bloc, with coinciding arms races and military buildups.

Be it a Cold War or Edwardian Era-style competition, these periods always come with worries not only of the threat of foreign adversaries, but also of “threats from within”; individuals and entities with loyalties to foreign states and groups that seek to deliberately undermine and weaken the country that they’re living in to the advantage of that country’s adversary or adversaries. Such fears are almost always both overblown, but also usually tinged with some form of racism or other prejudice in search of a convenient scapegoat – be it the antisemitism of the Dreyfus Affair in pre-World War I France, the internment of Japanese Americans after the Attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, or the recent dramatic spike in hate-crimes in the United States against Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent. As tensions with China rise, the old and ugly question of “dual loyalties” is raised from xenophobic right-wingers, essentially suggesting that not only any American of Chinese descent but any American who is not sufficiently white and European enough in their lineage has an unspoken loyalty to the country of their ancestors over any to the United States.

Obviously, anyone who actually has more than two lonely brain cells knows that the idea of dual loyalties is patently bullshit. Albert Dreyfus turned out to be falsely accused of spying for Germany, only being exonerated and reinstated in the French Army after years of protests on his behalf; the Japanese Americans interned in concentration camps in the American Southwest were just normal people, who were deprived of their property and livelihoods baselessly despite the fact their family members were also fighting and dying on the front lines in Europe, then going without so much as an apology from the US. government for years. Yes, an AAPI American could turn out to be a spy or a saboteur acting on behalf of a foreign government, but literally anyone could could turn out to be a spy or saboteur or insider threat; ethnic, racial, or religious background could have next to nothing to do with it. After all, the recent perpetrator of one of the largest US. intelligence leaks in modern history wasn’t Chinese or Russian or Iranian or Korean, but was in fact a 21-year old white dipshit Airman First Class in the Massachusetts Air National Guard of Portuguese descent.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “KD why are you going on about this in an essay that’s supposed to be about billionaires and capitalists and Elon Musk?” Well, part of if is just that it pisses me off in general and I wanted a chance to rant about it and this was as good an opportunity as any. However, I do have a point I’m trying to make here that brings us back to the main theme of this essay: there is a threat from within, and its capitalists like Elon Musk. The real “threat from within” isn’t based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, but is instead based around money, self-importance, narcissism, and the bizarre and harmful ideas that come from being online far too much and not having anyone around you ever tell you “no” or that you’re wrong. The whole Ukraine Starlink debacle is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the threat that Elon Musk-style capitalists could pose to US. national security – and however you feel about it, to your own security depending on where you live. Capitalists like Elon Musk not only are more likely to have the intent to embark upon the kinds of actions (and more) that those going on about racist “dual loyalties” assert, but they’re increasingly in a far better position to be able to act on that intent in a major way and cause serious harm. In my business, intent plus capability to act on it equals threat; you do the math.

For the longest time, weird billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk were confined to their more traditional domains of tech, finance, business, and so on. Their involvement in international affairs was mainly through a lens of investment, trade, and – of course – economic exploitation, but less through one of war and security (although Musk has dipped his toe in before). But over the years, Elon Musk and those of his ilk have increasingly latched on to the national security apparatus in the United States.

When it comes to the Defense Industrial Base – or DIB (this is what people in my profession call the “Military Industrial Complex” in polite company), its still mostly dominated by the kinds of companies you’d expect: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, BAE, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman – you know, all the superstars of companies that love selling weapons to some of the worst people you know (with the US. government’s blessing). Aside from building weapons and munitions, these companies often also provide direct services to the US. government through contractors. Search for job listings in the Washington DC. area and you’re sure to find a whole host of various shades of “intelligence analyst” positions for one of these companies working in support of some part of the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community.

While capitalists like Musk have not come anywhere near to shaking the hold the legacy defense companies have on the industry, they’ve managed to weasel their way in through various cracks and make themselves indispensable in unique ways. Musk’s SpaceX is the prime example of this, as if the United States wants to conduct a National Security Space Launch to put a sensitive military payload into orbit, its only two options are either SpaceX, or the United Launch Alliance – a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing (the US. is set to expand from two to three from 2025). While SpaceX itself may be the most normal and successful of Musk’s companies (it actually turned a profit this year, compared to say, Tesla), his influence and personality are still very much felt and subject to its whims – with SpaceX’s employees previously deriding their own boss as a “distraction” from their work.

It’s through SpaceX’s activities that we see capitalists like Musk don’t even have to take over the DIB to harm national and international security. Musk and those of his ilk only need to get enough responsibility and power in the right areas to have outsize impacts if they decide to go rogue. Ukraine was just a preview of what could happen on a larger scale. The United States military and other armed forces around the world have become increasingly dependent upon Musk as space has continue to grow in importance as a domain of warfare. In the case of Ukraine, Musk was quoted as saying “how am I in this war?” in addition to his concerns about a potential World War III, when it came to one Ukrainian attack on a Russian naval base; what about in other scenarios directly involving the United States? Musk has stated that he thinks Taiwan is “an integral part of China”; if the United States gets involved in a war with China to prevent it seizing Taiwan, would he then see fit to shut off all support to the US. military to prevent a nuclear war (admittedly, much more of a possibility here than in the Ukraine case, though not guaranteed to happen)?

In a more low stakes case than war with China, Musk has already put his relationships with various authoritarian and right-wing populist leaders like President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India on display for all to see, with questions have been asked by the US. government about investment from Saudi royals in Musk’s Twitter. If the United States went to war against a regional authoritarian power that Musk was financially dependent on or felt common ideological cause with, would he cut off support then because he disagreed with the US. attacking one of his fellow travelers and/or business partners? Musk’s actions on Ukraine opens up not simply a can of worms, but an CostCo sized value barrel of them.

Aside from potentially being able to take direct action in the form of denying services and capabilities to the military, Musk and those like him pose risks simply in having access to sensitive information – getting back to our espionage and “threat within” discussion earlier. As the head of a company with substantial DoD contracts, Musk holds a security clearance – one that has come under scrutiny twice now due to his drug use, but at time of writing he still has (full disclosure: I don’t think drug use in and of itself should deny you a clearance, but if we’re going to have all these rules about security clearances it’d be nice if they applied to all of us and not just all of us who aren’t a billionaire or the former President or someone else who’s “important”). I’m much more worried about an ideologically motivated billionaire capitalist with questionable loyalties and politics leaking large amounts of sensitive information, than I am some nobody. We’ve already seen how much classified material Trump was literally keeping in his shitter; what’s to say Musk and others like him wouldn’t do the same if they felt it in keeping with their worldview (especially if they also feel they have that aura of invincibility from their “reality distortion field” around them)?

I’ve mainly been using Elon Musk as my hobby horse throughout this essay because he’s the one that everyone is most likely to know about; but he’s far from the only one. Even if the big, traditional defense giants will continue to dominate the DIB, other Musk types are worming their way in and carving out fiefdoms that they could potentially do damage through. Another prominent example of this is Palmer Luckey (name alert). Prior to trying to break into the NatSec game, Luckey was best known for having founded Oculus VR and having designed the Oculus Rift, which he later sold to Facebook (now Meta) and became a key component of the Metaverse (which of course, as we all know – especially if you listen to Trashfuture – has been immensely successful and has moved everything we do into a virtual world with no legs).

Having moved on from Oculus, Luckey has now started and runs a startup/venture capitalist minded defense company known as “Anduril” that specializes in all the various flavors of the moment. Primarily, Anduril’s focus has been on autonomous systems (i.e., drones) of various kinds – as well as the means to counter them, but since its founding in 2017 its broadened its reach into areas such as solid-motor rockets (such as those used in hypersonic missiles), and command and control systems. As Anduril expands it operations and acquires other companies to facilitate these expansions, Luckey has made no secret of his goal of breaking into the top tier of defense companies, giving the giants mentioned earlier in this essay a real run for their money.

All of this hullabaloo about Anduril would be much of a muchness if Luckey wasn’t also a strident libertarian who donated to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign (Anduril later worked with the Trump administration on technology for its infamous “border wall”), who is also connected to infamous right-wing venture capitalist Peter Thiel (an early investor in Anduril). Luckey may very well be the ‘quiet’ Elon Musk that you don’t know about unless you’re a tech or NatSec person; the kind that only gets traction in Defense and tech trade publications and doesn’t end up as much in the mainstream news in comparison to Musk, but may very well just be just as ideological as Musk (if not more) and potentially just as dangerous under the right circumstances.

Potentially, Luckey and Anduril could be even more dangerous depending on how deep Anduril gets its tendrils into the DoD and in what ways). As mentioned before, Anduril is working on command and control (C2) systems for the DoD. Much like logistics is the lifeblood of any military, C2 is also extremely important. It doesn’t matter what fancy weapons you have or even what fancy intelligence collection methods you have (be it satellites, drones, or humans), but if you can’t information and intelligence back to the decision makers and then relay it to the units in the field, all the big guns and fancy drones you have are useless. If a company or companies like Anduril led by highly political leaders like Luckey in a highly polarized political environment like we have today become crucial to how the DoD plans to fight a war, you find yourself in another Elon Musk style situation where Palmer Luckey or someone like him could simply decide to shut off support to DoD if they do something he doesn’t like – or just being able to leak classified information should he choose to.

Before we move on, let me make something clear: I’m not saying the current situation with the big defense contractors dominating the DIB is good by any means. I don’t think private enterprise has any real role in national defense and if it were up to me all of those companies would be nationalized and replaced with Soviet-style design bureaus or something else entirely. What I’m talking about here, is the devil you know versus the devil you don’t. In terms of changing the world, until we can just nationalize the defense giants away or make them irrelevant in issues of national security, I’d prefer it be them doing what they’re doing than an Elon Musk or a Palmer Luckey doing it. For all of the faults of the big defense companies, they’re less likely to do something as crazy as Musk or someone like him is going to do. They’re going to be less personality driven and far more pragmatic in a way that is more manageable and also more predictable. While these companies may facilitate some awful shit, I feel like it pales in comparison to what Musk or those like him could wreak if they’ve given a bigger slice of the pie and more involvement in our national security. Musk has already proven he’s willing to torch large amounts of his wealth in the drug-fueled pursuit of his ideological and philosophical visions; don’t underestimate the capacity of him and people like him to fuck things up for everyone even more than they’re already doing.

The “Why You Should Care” Section (Yet Again)

I can understand why a number of leftists may read everything up until now (if they even still are reading) and at best wonder “why should I care”, or at worst thing “let them fight, this is good actually.” I can understand that impulse to a point – while I still disagree with it, but let me assure you and plead with you that you don’t actually want this state of affairs to continue and if its taken to its logical conclusion you’ll be sorry.

Billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk are already dangerous under “normal” conditions when they aren’t involved with waging war and they’re “only” dealing with electric vehicles that catch fire easily and run over people, space rockets that explode, bad transportation solutions, and etc. If you don’t think they could cause even more harm if they get involved in national security – both at home and abroad – you’re deluding yourself.

For someone who is stridently anti-war and fears for the state of the world, I can imagine there may even be some kind of an appeal to the idea of Elon Musk intervening in a war between the United States and some other power to stop it escalating to a nuclear exchange. But you have to understand, the interference of people like Musk in national security will never EVER be for the same reasons as you’d like, not even one bit; and the reasons he’s doing it will ultimately always contribute towards something making your life even more miserable. It’s either going to be done out of an interest to protect investments and markets, or out of an ideological or philosophical drive to protect their own twisted long-term worldview that still involves people like you and me being at best massively marginalized or at worst liquidated – or both!

The above all assumes if people like Musk makes more attempts like was done with Starlink in Ukraine on a larger scale in a more extensive conflict that it even accomplishes what was intended and doesn’t somehow backfire in a horrific way. Remember you’re dealing with cretinous man children who are often high out of their mind on ket or benzos or whatever, trying to post through their latest crisis, all while casually breaking laws left and right. You’ve seen the effects of Musk’s ownership of Twitter on the world at large; do you really think people like him getting more involved in matters of war is in any way good or helpful? That it wouldn’t potentially just make things even worse for everyone involved?

Admittedly, I may be making up someone to get mad at here (trying to anticipate “an anti-imperialist defense of Elon Musk” essay by some loser later on down the line). The real people I’m getting steamed at those who have promoted a Silicon Valley style “startup culture” mindset when its come to defense, hoping to invigorate a stagnant and stifled DIB leftover from the post Cold War era and the War on Terror and revitalize it for the new and multiplying security challenges the United States and the world now faces. Well, again, be careful what you wish for, I suppose.

I feel like many of those who had previously supported a startup/Silicon Valley style “disruption” of defense – in particular, those who don’t share Musk and Luckey’s ideological leanings – may now be starting to tentatively realize what many of us further on the Left have known for a while: billionaire capitalists are not a solution, they’re a threat. And they’re not just to our national security, but to all of the well being of everyone, everywhere. That second part of that point may still be a bit too much for some of these folks to swallow, but getting them to understand that first point about billionaires being a national security threat is a point that could serve as a useful wedge issue that has the added virtue of being true. If we can get security minded liberals or even so-called centrists to understand the security threats posed by this generation of extremely online right-wing minded billionaires we’ve been cursed with, maybe from there we can get them to see all the other problems they (and the system they’re a part of) can cause. More people need to understand that’s no room for ultra rich fascist-friendly freaks like Elon Musk in national security, and whatever perceived benefits they’ve deluded themselves into thinking those types bring to the table is heavily outweighed by the risks not only to US. national security but to international security and the lives and livelihoods of people across the world.

For too long, too many convinced themselves that the “disruptive” and “innovate” styles of start up entrepreneurs and tech bros would be a shot in the arm to a defense establishment trying desperately to retool itself for large scale conflict after twenty years of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency with mixed to failed results. Now, they’re seeing what those of us on the Left have seen for ages: a threat – and a threat they’ve let into their home. While I wish they’d come to this realization sooner, it’s not too late to do something about it. Ultimately, the role of capital needs to be removed our defense and security entirely, but I’ll certainly take getting dangerous dipshits like Elon Musk out of it for a start before we move onto the more traditional ones.

On that note, I just looked at my word count for this one and went “holy shit” and have decided this is as good a place as any to wrap up (I could have gone on longer just about the more “traditional” capitalists in Defense, especially given news that Wall Street Executives are going to be doing a war game with Members of Congress – an announcement that made my eyes roll back up in my head), but I think I’m saving those rounds for another engagement. Until next time, stay safe out there, and peace.

62 notes · View notes