Excerpt from CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944)
svn.cacert.org
svn.cacert.org
(11) General Interference with Organizations and Production
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
What are we going to do about it?
I think this manual is most appropriately understood as an early reference for the operations of the FBI in COINTELPRO, etc. State employed agents-provocateur and saboteurs were some of the first to literally use these exact reference manuals domestically, and their targets were the various social and labor movements of the day.
Dictatorial control only prevents this for institutions small enough for the dictator to fully understand every part of the organization.
Without that, you get middle managers jockeying for position and playing CYA and the people at the top are too far away from it to put a stop to it.
In looser structures like social movements or nascent labor organizations, it's hard for any individual/subset to wield enough authority to do either of those things.
There are parallels with any organization (even families), but I think it's rather weak when applied to modern corporations.
This is why the sabotage relies on organizational politics and by the book pedantry.
You have a corporate policy that was created by lawyers and HR for the solitary purpose of ass covering. It's so that if anyone violates it, they can point to the policy as an excuse to scapegoat them or have an independent pretext to punish wrongthinkers for things they're not legally or politically allowed to punish them for.
If you insist on actually following that policy to the letter to the detriment of the organization, your boss is risking their own ass to put a stop to it, so most of them won't. And the policy itself comes from over their head, so they can't change it.
Bob hates to work with X, but Bob's boss's boss got a kickback for signing a contract with X vendor, so now Bob is going to follow every policy to the letter on the X project until it fails or his request for reassignment goes through.
Carol has OCD. You give her a policy book and she's going to read it cover to cover and create her own index to it and make citations to individual provisions whenever she sees anyone violating it, even if they're only violating the letter and not the spirit.
Alice does the same thing but it's because she's an opportunist, so she only looks for policy violations as retaliation for not getting her way and people learn not to cross her.
... Scarily accurate? Spot on? A sad but correct reading of how companies actually operate?
These techniques aren’t effective because they’re clearly sabotage. They’re effective because they kill an organizations effectiveness AND often happen naturally, so by turning it up a notch you’ll throw even more wrenches into the works than normal - but fly under the radar.
The whole strict hierarchy and breaking ties thing you’re talking about exists because all the things in this manual happen all the time ANYWAY, just not as often.
And there are a number of ways to point fingers and hide/diffuse blame that happen all day everywhere anyway too, and work.
Apple has 150k employees and runs mostly like a dictatorship with very long ruler at the top that has a lot of power and a generally consistent long-term version they’re executing on. Distributed decision making might be a bit stronger but there’s also no real laws to speak of with lots of forgiveness if things turn out well.
Also the motives are drastically different. Government is about creating the best structure for a bunch of humans to cohabitate with a shared value system. Corporations typically are about amassing power, wealth, and influence over governments.
Managers are also aware of their company's market position. If the new Camaro didn't sell, GM was still going to exist. If the Model 3 didn't sell, Tesla was toast. A middle manager who bankrupts the company inherently loses their job, so people are less inclined to play stupid games when that's what's on the line.
Companies doing novel things are also able to retain employees who believe in the mission even when the big boss is a fire breathing dragon. You put the same kind of boss in charge of the DMV or the cable company and people are just going to quit, or exert political pressure against the boss.
This points to antitrust as a solution. Constrain mergers and vertical integration. Then companies that become bureaucratically inefficient actually fail and go away, solving the problem. And that possibility was always the primary deterrent to it happening, which is why it happens so much more when that isn't on the table.
For more clarity on what can happen in organizations that are antagonistic to hierarchy and structure, I can think of no better read than “The Tyranny of structurelessness” by Jo Feeman https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
That happened to Occupy Wall Street, and to Black Lives Matter. Both failed to focus on specific, achievable goals. And so, they never got beyond the consciousness raising stage. If Occupy Wall Street had focused on "Tax the 1%" and "Break up monopoly landlords", and Black Lives Matter had focused on "Every killing by a cop gets investigated by the FBI" and "Fire the bottom 10% of cops", they might have achieved those goals.
I'm sorry but I feel like this author is really out of touch here. Perhaps to someone who only interacted with it through the news, it seemed like they didn't get anything done. But that energy didn't just dissipate. It spread to almost every facet of American leftist organizing
Also saying Graeber gave us occupy is giving a lot more credit to him than I think is fair. And I think Occupy introduced a lot more people to Graeber than Graeber introduced to Occupy
I didn't realize that Occupy had helped labor organizing.
Does leftist theory really help when trying to organize a business?
Ummm… the 60’s would like to have a word with you. You’re clearly lack some significant history lessons.
And did you miss the 60's?
BLM wasn't formed in response to police violence, so if it was to limit itself to a narrow tactical policy aim, those would have been odd choices.
Also, BLM has arguably had a broader and more substantial impact already than achieving either one of those narrow goals would have.
???
Do you have references to that?
I understand that BLM prominence started with the Ferguson protests against cop Darren Wilson murdering Michael Brown Jr
(Ps, forgot about Zimmerman murdering Trayvon. But that's also a cop-adjacent figure. What most people would define a vigilante)
Yes, it became prominent then because it was already well established with a network of activists, etc.; the principal triggering event (as your PS seems to acknowledge) was the slaying of Trayvon Martin.
> But that's also a cop-adjacent figure.
That may be a valid viewpoint, but it's not the fact that BLM organized around, which was the lack of accountability and the identity of the victim, not anything about the personal characteristics or background of the perpetrator.
“Police”.
> You're both saying that BLM was founded and organized around the lack of police accountability when killing black people
No, “police” was not part of the founding focus. Events involving police just happened to be the ones that brought the network to mass attention, after it was founded in response to a non-police (even if some might see it as “police adjacent”) killing with a focus that was not in any way focussed on whether those responsible but not held accountable were police, or “police adjacent”.
Courts of law are institutions of government, and surprisingly enough people sometimes disagree with the jobs done by institutions of government.
My impression is that the movement gets co-opted as a generic partisan force, and then having specific goals is a detriment when the unstated goal is merely to elect a particular party.
The best goal for Occupy Wall Street would have been to break up all the Too Big To Fail institutions. The "problem" with that was twofold.
One, if that's the goal, and they manage to turn the election, then they'll expect the people they elected to actually do it. But politicians didn't wanna do it. Both parties are in the pocket of the banks.
And two, if they actually did do it, it would be done. The movement would have succeeded and lost its raison d'etre. If you solve the problem then you can't run on it again.
So you're completely right. The question is how to prevent movements from getting co-opted like this. Because actually solving the problem is the thing we should want.
I hate to bring this up but just think how differently things would have played out if the JFK assassination did not happen. I don't believe the conspiracy theories and so I consider it a black swan event. Where are we suffering from government sabotage today? Would BLM have turned out differently? Would we have even needed it in the first place if prior sabotage events didn't happen? Anyway this is leading into conspiracy territory but I just was wondering out loud.
Well it certainly didn't overcome all events. The FBI violently executed the leadership of the Black Panthers through local police that had 0 repercussions for their (very illegal) actions. Cultural groups in the south like the Daughters of the Confederacy really ramped up their culture war and made sure to filter all history textbooks, put up monuments, etc. Cops have been able to kill black folks and totally get away with it for decades now
Imagine where we could be if Huey Newton did actually get elected to local politics. Or if the South didn't ramp up their culture war
The processes in this document sound utterly familiar.
All the things in the quote happen naturally, through people’s general incompetence. To put it in a field manual is very tongue in cheek, reads to me as irony. Corporations and political parties run themselves as poorly as if they were infiltrated by sabotagers, but they do it to themselves.
Great way to stir up paranoia on a forum where people tend not to be able to grok humor, but also tend to believe in conspiracy theories.
It's pretty much not a troll post from 4chan.
My impression is completely the opposite. The CIA itself is a large inefficient bureaucracy and the people who wrote this are clever operators who have seen this in action themselves and can now point to this to accuse the perpetrators of being enemy saboteurs.
Think about what the countermeasures against this look like. Fewer bureaucratic rules, less rigidity, smaller teams, more individual autonomy. The behavior of the intransigent bureaucrat and the saboteur are the same, so institute policies in the name of defeating the one and you also take care of the other.
Take a look at the findings of the Church Committee, or at Operation Condor, Operation Mockingbird, the coup in Iran (admittedly a CIA operation), the CIA fomented strikes and civic unrest in Chile after Allende's election, Gladio, the "Jakarta Method", etc.
But anyway, the non-hoax better strategy for a saboteur is exactly doing whatever destructive acts come naturally to people. So a real guide would probably have those same topics.
And people do these things naturally all the time in large orgs and small. Visit a local PTA or a city council meeting with a copy and play bingo if you don’t believe me.
It only reads like a hoax because it’s all in one place.
But then, that depends on the who the guide targets, and may not be as important during an active war as it looks like in peace time.
If I wanted to convince most people I were not stupid or incompetent I would:
1. point out problems with their plans
2. argue about precise wordings as pedantry is seen as the sign of a precise intelligence.
3. be reasonable and urge reasonableness, surely the incompetent would not be reasonable.
4. talk about potential ramifications of decisions made going against organizational goals.
etc. etc. in short many of the methods that will allow you to shut down progress also help bolster your own reputation for intellectual rigor and understanding of issues from all sides.
Sure you won't be seen as a fiery genius, but a sagacious counselor - that's good enough.
alas, many saboteurs may consider themselves friends.
How does the old quote go? ‘The worst tyrant is the one who thinks they are doing it for your own good, because the evil ones at least take a break, where the do gooders are tireless’?
But I've been ruminating on how to start a political and economic movement committed to dismantling the bureaucratic state by empowering individuals to be ever more autonomous.
Adjacent notions are participatory democracy (a la the Iroquois), banning usury, UBI, worker directed social enterprises, left-libertarian, and healing the world. More to be added as my whimsy and imagination permit.
Trouble is, one of the things that empowered, autonomous individuals always seem to do is organize themselves into corporate, governmental, religious, academic, or other institutional bodies that then proceed to behave indistinguishably from the targets they were reacting against in the first place. At each iteration, only the in-group beneficiaries and out-group victims are different.
The larger problem is the nature and regulation of human organization, which isn't so easily tackled.
The problem comes when markets become consolidated and uncompetitive, or bad regulations get applied at the national or international level and there is nowhere to flee. Which persists when upon it happening people say "eh" and do nothing, instead of taking it for the threat that it is and fighting it with all they've got.
I would add higher government pay scale with rules you can't just outsource to consultant markups. + more nimble technocratic management in government.
A bit of Googling shows Ernest to be a minor Libertarian party official out of Maricopa County, Az, and anti-vax.
What exactly is he doing that you feel is worthy of people's attention?
[0] https://lpedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hancock
[1] https://thevoicegcc.com/11072/a1news/phoenix-couple-cautions...
As an activist, I spoke to anyone and everyone who'd have me. Socialist, Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, and all sorts of nonpartisan orgs.
At the time, I felt everyone's core values were more or less the same. Opinions started to diverge over priority. More so with implementation. Then game-over once the dialog drifted into personalities.
I gotta believe that the way forward is flipping the script from nitpicking over differences to emphasizing our agreements.
And I sense that one of our shared, unifying, omni-partisan values is our mutual hatred of bureaucracy. Of any kind. Corporate and governmental.
I'm no smarter or better than any one else about this stuff. I have a history of getting really spun up. I do feel my efforts have helped my own mental state.
One thing that has helped, for instance, is figuring out that we're all a little bit crazy. Another is realizing that my "own the libs" siblings don't actually believe the stuff they say; it's just sport for them. So I try to not take the bait.
Any way. You get the idea.
Peace.
I don't write people off on labels. I have a high degree of suspicion that I share with others when they publically and openly signal adherence to a damaging set of certain lies, like antivax advocacy. In this case, they write themselves off.
I am classical liberal and know what it is like to have a minority view that is in reality held by everyone when you get past the barriers.
In this case, the website looks scammy.
I am not Jewish (culturally or religiously) but love the notion.
I'm a cultural Christian (Presbyterian) and a treehugger. "Shepherds of the Earth" and all that. I currently like the "heal the world" framing better. Somehow it feels less like proselytizing, maybe more like gnosticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam#Improving_the_worl...
Add this to your list:
Two party system is poison.
99% of this is home gown. And infiltrating agent's job would, be to accelerate these natters. Assuming your group matters enough which allike.
But complaining about this has not helped us fix things quite yet either :-/
Channels, aka processes in the corporate world.
> (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
Hey, this sounds like the sort of thing that goes on in everyday discussions on the Internet. And likely for the same ultimate purpose.
Simple Sabotage Field Manual - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26293804 - Feb 2021 (1 comment)
CIA's Declassified 1941 Simple Sabotage Field Manual - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316292 - May 2020 (1 comment)
Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322041 - Feb 2020 (89 comments)
Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15109771 - Aug 2017 (32 comments)
The CIA’s 1944 Simple Sabotage Field Manual (2015) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12253276 - Aug 2016 (64 comments)
Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10493881 - Nov 2015 (68 comments)
How to make sure nothing gets done at work - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10393485 - Oct 2015 (3 comments)
Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4831363 - Nov 2012 (67 comments)
From CIA: Timeless Tips for 'Simple Sabotage' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4243649 - July 2012 (3 comments)
WW2 "Simple Sabotage Field Manual" declassified [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=905750 - Oct 2009 (6 comments)
OSS (pre-CIA) Simple Sabotage Field Manual - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=833443 - Sept 2009 (29 comments)
=== General Inquiries ===
- Answer a question other than the one being asked. Feign misunderstanding.
- Give incomplete answers. Do anything you can to almost but not completely answer the inquiry .
- Delay answering as long as possible.
- Answer with a question.
- Request more information than required to answer an inquiry.
- Attempt redirection to other people or resources.
- Involve as many people as possible
- Rebuke the inquirer when they follow up on a previous unanswered inquiry within an arbitrary time window (days, not hours).
- When asked multiple questions, answer only only of them, ignoring all others. Wait to be prompted to answer each question individually.
- When asked multiple questions, answer the least important or time sensitive question first.
- Ignore all information provided besides the single question being answered.
- Prefer slower or more onerous communication methods 1. snail mail 2. email 3. text messaging 4. audio call 5. video call 6. in-person meeting
- Mix multiple communication methods
- If contacted using a lower ranking method, upgrade.
But when it's an e-mail or other interaction that they understand as "conversational", these people tend to not start acting on the output until the end.
So ask for 3 things, and chances are only the last one will still be in the queue by the time they've read your whole message. The rest will have just popped out of their mind and no longer exist in their world until they're prompted to re-read your message.
For people who act like that, seemingly the only way around it short of drip-feeding them questions one at a time that I've found is to present them with a document attachment and only one request: "Please follow the procedure in the attached document." And make them sign off. And provide a checklist if they're particularly difficult.
You basically need to make it clear that the list is not conversation. You can find people who are pathologically unable to process a list of instructions in an e-mail who are at the same time completely OCD about processing lists of instructions in a document, because they context-switch completely.
Of course in this context of "sabotage" this can be exploited to: Mercilessly attach all information in a bunch of separate documents, and add checklists and signoffs to everything. Especially to unimportant stuff.
Having at one time worked for the Federal Government I know me and my fellow employees created surprisingly similar documents (though nothing as formal) chronically the absurdity of our daily life.
This type of "sabotage" reminds of the Onion's FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States[0]. For most large organizations these techniques are already widely practiced.
0. https://www.theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-...
I resonate with it because I can name persons who, intentionally or not, do these exact actions within our org; I can even name a few I know do it intentionally as they said as such. Their goal isn't to get fired or to cause "real" trouble, but instead to cause frustration without getting in trouble.
There are similar guides, or were anyways, on how to effectively troll/create chaos online; it's not that the authors of the articles are geniuses that created this stuff in a vacuum, they just had a need for such a specific outcome and turns out humans have been doing this ever since we started making hierarchies.
* (or any other intelligence organization across the globe really)
FWIW, the counter to this though is to just ignore such "saboteurs" as much as you can. Most of the time their ability to frustrate relies on consistently being in places where they can frustrate or by participating with persons who are drawn into such distractions.
If you cannot avoid working with them, the same tactics that are disruptive in this manual (documentation, etc), can be used against the saboteur also. Establish documentation procedures that even if only you are using it, you can define time sinks and inefficiencies.
Bend the rules a little and continue projects without the problematic person, finding a replacement that does help, and when you report on the project, document the saboteur not as a problem, but instead that your chosen replacement was an improvement on them.
These workplace saboteurs thrive on creating confusion, chaos, and disruption, and working in channels that aren't easily observable, and most importantly, by exploiting our tendencies towards good faith interpretations in all things (which is what we're taught is correct and polite).
Businesses live by hard numbers and profit.
It's a sometimes tense experience, but discipline and resistance to getting drawn into the saboteurs chaos can and eventually will get the desired results. If the business truly doesn't respond or the saboteur has such sway/pull that their lack of output/efficiency doesn't prompt some action from the business, then truly the business is not one you want to be in.
Quite a few workplace saboteurs have been removed from my workplace doing this (either by threat of firing that resulted in resignation or outright firing). The end result of a few weeks of just practicing brevity in meetings, taking the time to make a chain of documentation for interactions with such persons, and avoiding getting wrapped up into "games" helped a ton. Follow-up emails from conversations the saboteur wants to keep "just in chat" or "just on a quick call" are extremely useful, just a quick high-level summary and suggestion for next steps and a request to update the thread showed a reluctance of these persons to participate (add in little messages like "hey I pinged you in our chat also and didn't get the response either" to just cover your tracks)
Kind of like the Coventry problem (actually, identical to the Coventry problem).
This reads like "The Anarchist's Guide to Bringing Down FAANG." (MAANG?)
i'm learning more about proper technique than sabotage from this
Implying without further evidence that therefore academic social scientists are secret saboteurs, part of a spy agency conspiracy, is defamatory nonsense. Whatever anyone thinks about Marcuse per se, this kind of cheap anti-intellectualism is deplorable.
Nazi dogwhistle bullshit.
And it’s not like these fascists are only anti-semitic. They are also happy to whine incoherently about women, gays, blacks, Native Americans, Latin Americans, Chinese, Arabs, Indians, schoolteachers, public health experts, organized labor, ....
And for that matter happy to complain about the straight male WASP academics who have "sold out their people". Etc.
Take for example this 2-day-old twitter post post by a guy affiliated with all sorts of GOP and GOP-adjacent organizations, https://twitter.com/jlippincott_/status/1471584502266880005
What was that about tech not being totalitarian?
There is nothing anti-intellectual about pointing out the tactics used within organizations today, learned in the universities, resemble this sabotage manual, especially since the tactics I am referring to are nihilistic and totalitarian, and come right out of what Arendt (as it turns out, a contemporary of members said school mentioned downthread) described as the necessary conditions for a totalitarian movement. There is zero controvsery that academia and its appendant institutions, and now big tech, and even finance has been compromised by a totalitarian movement whose members are trained that power is the highest good, that there is no truth, no God, no consequences, and other downstream effluent of what appears to be a strain of Heideggerian Marxism.
One hopes you apply the same standard of intellectualism to your fellow travelers whose best responses reduce to hysterical canards that are so absurd as to be beneath a denial. I encourgage you all to please, do better.
Plus you are, as you notice, absolutely allowed to spout anti-semitic rhetoric, and will not be literally burned at the stake or shot for it. This does not free you from professional consequences, even in the academic sphere, because it is hard to take seriously the ideas of someone who seriously believes that the Jews invented Marxism as a weapon to do what-exactly?
Even ignoring the rest of your description, yes, there is considerable controversy that any, much less all, of those three things have been compromised by a totalitarian movement, and if you think that that view is uncontroversial you need to at least glance outside of the far-right fever swamp occasionally.
> (7) Spread disturbing rumors that sound like inside dope.
That caught my eye anyway.
The similarity to actually observed behavior isn't a coincidence.
You can walk out to the factory floor with a sledgehammer and start smashing things right there in front of everyone. You might even cause quite a bit of damage before someone stops you. But then you're getting arrested.
You can cause just as much damage by wasting everybody's time with organizational politics and "safety first" hand wringing, but then what are they going to say? You're too diligent? So then you get to stay and do it all again tomorrow.
Imagine a manager firing someone for being too concerned about safety.
They’ll probably say you’re promoted!
5 years ago (64 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12253276
6 years ago (68 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10493881
2 years ago (89 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322041
9 years ago (68 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4831363
4 years ago (32 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15109771
12 years ago (29 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=833443
* And redux / sagas
* Rewrite in rust
* 100% test coverage or reject PR
* The most elaborate git workflow you can find
* Bonuses based on completed story points
* OKRs
Either that or I have some very sharp questions for some former coworkers.
you could apply this principle to information security/network security practices as well... just neglect to patch things, use out of date methods, leave cruft and half-finished projects laying around, etc.
If you have an organization, it can be attacked, both legally and extralegally. Cf. the history of labor organizing in the US.
And without it, distributed, uncoordinated action is less likely to lead to positive-sum outcomes, but is also a far harder-to-suppress tax on the corporate order.
Note: I think it's a world-wide phenomenon, not localised to the US where clearly, the workers have changed their relationships with productivity and contributions to making the system prevail.
This is from the extended version. Feels really strangely relevant these days...
The Manual is one of my favorite pieces of historical literature, but I think that people become too cynical about large organizations after they read the manual. It is important to understand how coordination can slow down or fail, but becoming cynical only makes the problem worse.
Sadly, most of them are not even paid by some foreign superpower.
Now I'm wondering if there was internal resistance that caused things to fall apart.
That still doesn't make the headline correct, though. CIA simply didn't exist in WW2.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
@dang-- can you please change "CIA's" to "Open Source Software's" in the title?
Thanks.
https://archive.org/details/freedomfightersm00unit/page/n3/m...
That Peppa Pig Speech is starting to make more sense.
Also, Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26184/page-images/26184-imag...
I'm not it's its CIA sabotage. Mot to mention the longer full stream was immediately taken down by the organizers out for fear fear of mean words on the internet being said about them.
But the ideology inherently pushes towards so many of these listed (self-)sabotage tactics it almost doesn't even need it.
https://solaire.substack.com/p/software-engineers-simple-sab...