8 ms·

The 1944 CIA Guide to Sabotaging Meetings (2021)

39 points by flobosg 3y ago

romusha 3y ago
Imagine what they have today with the advance in behavioral science
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  (A) Forget to unmute yourself in meetings as much as possible.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    Or leave yourself off mute the whole time in a noisy environment.
burnerburnson 3y ago
The end of the article was bizarre. This did not remind me of Trump at all. Most of it is the exact opposite of Trump who is usually criticized for being rash and not picking his words carefully enough.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]
drewcoo 3y ago
All of that is also an effective way for middle management to create bottlenecks, thus "requiring" more staff, thus growing power. I've seen that in several companies. I can only assume they weren't all feds.
ETH_start 3y ago
Reminds me Bitcoin discussions, circa 2013 - 2015, on the direction of protocol development. The bizarre campaign to prevent the formation of a consensus around executing on Bitcoin's roadmap to become scalable began with this professionally produced video in 2013: https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx
- kekebo 3y ago
  Could you provide more context on this?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Bitcoin had a 1 MB block size limit put in place in its early life as an anti-DOS measure. The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it. While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
    - kekebo 3y ago
      Thanks!
    - treyd 3y ago
      > While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, [citation needed] And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        The fact that r/Bitcoin had to resort to censorship to stop the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT is one indication that the majority wanted a hard fork. Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1] And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it. >>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place. Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork. [1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-letter.pdf https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...
tkgally 3y ago
Here are links to the original document: https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
danielvf 3y ago
You can read the whole document, not just this section here: https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... My read on the section on management has always been that here we moved from theoreticial means of sabotage (cross electrical wires in cable, then plug it into multiple outlets around your apartment to blow as many fuses in the building as possible so that your neighbors can't listen to a propaganda broadcasts) to something that the writers had had deep personal experience with in previous jobs. The OSS was defined by their being outside the old stuffy system, and I'm sure this was a dig at the bureaucracy they were trying to escape from. In the OSS way of making things happen, they didn't want speeches or buck passing.
- smegsicle 3y ago
  too bad alsa won after all
jonny_eh 3y ago
I've always wondered if this document was originally written in jest.
- tkgally 3y ago
  I just read the entire guide. The section about meetings is only a small part; there’s much more about sabotaging buildings, manufacturing, transportation, etc. It looks to me to be a genuine document, prepared when much of Western Europe was occupied by Germany and the U.S. Office of Strategic Services was trying to encourage civilian resistance to that occupation. The Project Gutenberg version is probably the easiest to read: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 The very end of the document is also entertaining: “(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion (a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned. (b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police. (c) Act stupid. (d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble. (e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations. (f) Complain against ersatz materials. (g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly. (h) Stop all conversation when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe. (i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks. (j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities. (k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.”
kekebo 3y ago
@dang Was this post hidden? I can only find it through my history anymore
- tussa 3y ago
  Was going to ask that. I had the tab open but couldn't find it on HN anymore. I think it was at least in 5th place on the front page when it suddenly disappeared. Wasn't there a tool to monitor HN article rankings?
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    https://hnrankings.info/39073285/ https://hnrankings.info/39073285/

39 points by flobosg 3y ago

romusha 3y ago

Imagine what they have today with the advance in behavioral science

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
(A) Forget to unmute yourself in meetings as much as possible.
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  Or leave yourself off mute the whole time in a noisy environment.

burnerburnson 3y ago

The end of the article was bizarre. This did not remind me of Trump at all. Most of it is the exact opposite of Trump who is usually criticized for being rash and not picking his words carefully enough.

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]

drewcoo 3y ago

All of that is also an effective way for middle management to create bottlenecks, thus "requiring" more staff, thus growing power. I've seen that in several companies. I can only assume they weren't all feds.

ETH_start 3y ago

Reminds me Bitcoin discussions, circa 2013 - 2015, on the direction of protocol development. The bizarre campaign to prevent the formation of a consensus around executing on Bitcoin's roadmap to become scalable began with this professionally produced video in 2013: https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx

kekebo 3y ago
Could you provide more context on this?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Bitcoin had a 1 MB block size limit put in place in its early life as an anti-DOS measure. The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it. While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
  - kekebo 3y ago
    Thanks!
  - treyd 3y ago
    > While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, [citation needed] And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      The fact that r/Bitcoin had to resort to censorship to stop the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT is one indication that the majority wanted a hard fork. Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1] And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit. As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it. >>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place. Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork. [1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-letter.pdf https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...

tkgally 3y ago

Here are links to the original document: https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184

danielvf 3y ago

You can read the whole document, not just this section here: https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... My read on the section on management has always been that here we moved from theoreticial means of sabotage (cross electrical wires in cable, then plug it into multiple outlets around your apartment to blow as many fuses in the building as possible so that your neighbors can't listen to a propaganda broadcasts) to something that the writers had had deep personal experience with in previous jobs. The OSS was defined by their being outside the old stuffy system, and I'm sure this was a dig at the bureaucracy they were trying to escape from. In the OSS way of making things happen, they didn't want speeches or buck passing.

smegsicle 3y ago
too bad alsa won after all

jonny_eh 3y ago

I've always wondered if this document was originally written in jest.

tkgally 3y ago
I just read the entire guide. The section about meetings is only a small part; there’s much more about sabotaging buildings, manufacturing, transportation, etc. It looks to me to be a genuine document, prepared when much of Western Europe was occupied by Germany and the U.S. Office of Strategic Services was trying to encourage civilian resistance to that occupation. The Project Gutenberg version is probably the easiest to read: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 The very end of the document is also entertaining: “(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion (a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned. (b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police. (c) Act stupid. (d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble. (e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations. (f) Complain against ersatz materials. (g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly. (h) Stop all conversation when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe. (i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks. (j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities. (k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.”

kekebo 3y ago

@dang Was this post hidden? I can only find it through my history anymore

tussa 3y ago
Was going to ask that. I had the tab open but couldn't find it on HN anymore. I think it was at least in 5th place on the front page when it suddenly disappeared. Wasn't there a tool to monitor HN article rankings?
- smegsicle 3y ago
  https://hnrankings.info/39073285/ https://hnrankings.info/39073285/