Thread by @2youngBadazz

early silicon valley history, first pass:

this will be an attempt to cover some of the important aspects of what became known as the silicon valley area, and its relation to the broader history of wireless transmission and electronics

although now best known for its relation to semiconductors, the region played a crucial role during the *pre* semiconductor era of electronics as well

in the early 1900s, radio technology was new and undeveloped. since radio could not compete with wired communication terrestrially, its primary initial usage was in ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication, with early adopters including the US navy and united fruit company

in the beginning, 'spark gap' transmitters were the only available means of generating radio waves. this method was most conducive towards generating pulses rather than continuous waves, and as such was limited mostly to communicating morse code

an important company during the spark gap period was nesco, which through its founder reginald fessenden had also made early progress towards transmitting voice over wireless technology

nesco was able to compete with more established companies like marconi and telefunken to earn the largest share of the navy's radio contracts, which accounted for the company's entire business excepting some work done for united fruit

nesco waned in prominence as new technologies emerged to replace fessenden's, and after the company's minor role in the early era up through wwi it ended up sold to westinghouse and then RCA

note that the previous image mentions the titanic. the story of the titanic is very interesting from the perspective of electronics history:

the sinking of the titanic was used to justify sweeping regulation of radio waves, requiring the licensing of all amateur operators and enacting harsh penalties for violations

the sinking was blamed on amateur operators clogging the airspace and spreading misinformation, rather than on the marconi operators who failed to address the emergency situation of the ship

so, examined critically, it seems possible that this is indeed a 'false flag', or however you want to call it, to justify a massive crackdown on this new and powerful communication technology

and there are many 'conspiracy theories' about this sinking indeed, from other angles. one of which is insurance fraud:

false flag, a crackdown on a blossoming and powerful communication technology, insurance fraud, are something we certainly have familiarity with being grouped together, yeah?

also interesting are the deaths of several prominent members of the american ruling class. i wont examine further at this time, but i do feel that at some point the ruling class would have tried to obscure itself and its lineage so i will mention this and leave it at that for now

anyway, spark gap technology had many critical problems from the perspective of radio transmission. an alternative, the arc transmitter, was developed and commercialized by a Palo Alto company called federal telegraph.

federal telegraph corporation, FTC, built the first truly global radio communication system using arc transmitters, and many important figures in the history of electronics passed through the company

the origin story of FTC is also quite interesting. during this early period, 1900-1910, many attempted to solve the problem of wireless voice transmission. one notable demonstration was done by a san fran teenager named francis mccarty.

in 1905, 15-year-old mccarty had demonstrated wireless telephony and was seeking funds for his inventions

tragically, he died in a transportation accident before being able to achieve wider success

following his death, two local bankers approached the aforementioned cyril elwell to see if there was any way to commercialize on mccarty's inventions. elwell ultimately decided they were not practical, and instead the company licensed poulson's arc technology

here again we have to pause and imagine if foul play might have been involved - FTC would go on to be an industry leader out of more or less nothing, becoming the choice contractor of the US navy for its communication system

and indeed FTC was the first significant high technology company from this region. it served a crucial role in the US' wireless ambitions during this very volatile pre-WWI period

FTC found itself in trouble early on, only to be "saved" by the US navy. the navy was very interested in the solutions offered by arc transmission. the navy asked for ever larger arc sets to support reliable communication over farther and farther distances

during WWI the navy continued to push the limits of arc technology, with larger and larger structures, but it too had problems that made it increasingly untenable

by the end of WWI, vacuum tubes had become developed enough to be a viable replacement for arc transmission, and they solved several of the issues presented by previous technologies

lee de forest, of FTC, invented vacuum tube technology that solved both the issue of signal amplification as well as the ability to generate continuous radio waves (remember this was an issue with regards to transmission of voice and sound)

forgive the garbled picture, but i couldnt find any version of this that had this page scanned correctly. de forest's patents were sold on the cheap to AT&T, and after WWI FTC found its role waning much like NESCO's and it was bought by Mackay and then Mackay was bought by ITT

after WWI, the electrical giants GE, Westinghouse, and AT&T as well as United Fruit formed a patent arrangement embodied in the radio corporation of america, RCA

contrary to the assertion here that RCA inherited its 'predatory characteristics' from Marconi, rather it seems very clear that RCA was established to be a heavy-handed moderator to the booming radio industry of the 1920s

RCA's dominance loomed over the entire electronics industry, allowing it to absorb or disrupt new technologies and companies. one such example is early cathode ray tube television, developed by philo farnsworth in san francisco -

farnsworth's company was sold to philco, however RCA threatened philco with the withdrawal of a manufacturing license unless the farnsworth lab was shut down. unable to compete, the company was eventually absorbed into ITT

circling back to FTC, they ran into issues with the patent block as well. here is the image from earlier, emphasis being on the final paragraph

FTC was forced to manufacture vacuum tubes internally in response to the blockade of the patent trust

this effort was managed by charles litton, another stanford graduate, in 1928. litton was an innovator who continued to refine the art of vacuum tube manufacture well after his departure from FTC in 1932

litton was not the only notable spinoff from ftc, beyond what we have already seen (and indeed the entire development of vacuum tubes is connected to ftc via de forest) there are numerous others, a pattern similar to what we will examine in the silicon era

note the continued interference from RCA with regards to magnavox,

and the absorption into RCA with the single-dial radio tuner from victor phonograph

to recap this period briefly, starting roughly from 1900, in two short decades radio technology exploded and the fundamental technology shifted from spark transmission, to arc transmission, and ultimately to vacuum tubes. in the next decade radios became a consumer mainstay.

to support this rapid technological development, the bay area played a curiously outsize role in each of these crucial periods. we see that stanford is already playing a significant organizational role in all of this, and of course that this development was heavily moderated -

at first by the navy, and then by RCA during the consumer era.

this suggests to me an effort by the central planners to try to distribute research efforts beyond the east coast technological giants, while maintaining a very short leash and of course ultimately absorbing the fruits and talent back into these larger organizations

all of this enabled an extremely rapid transformation of truly the entire world while minimizing the risk of things getting out of hand

beyond "legal" strategies and using the weight of the navy's market share, it seems foul play must too be involved and i am curious if there are other cases like that of mccarty

i have to assume that by this point, the beginning of the wireless era if not earlier, the insider clique that will produce the nazis as well as the post-wwii technological plan to depopulate the globe has coalesced into something fairly stable

already the leadership may have obscured themselves, using fakes and fronts and large companies to confuse attempts to nail down at an individual level the "inside" members of this group

by the time of the spectacular double-spinning off of fairchild semiconductor, this group is truly in the shadows

this may sound dramatic but consider the state of things today - all of the world's "richest" are fakes who are not actually rich, all outsiders from the perspective of this clique despite obvious and unbroken continuity between this early wireless era and the present

this is only a first pass, so at another time we will circle back to the figures of the leading organizations and moderators of this era as a possible entrypoint into confidently identifying the members of this insider clique so that we can trace their lineage forward

but for now it will serve as a useful basis of comparison for the silicon era and its methods to solve the same problems of maintaining control over rapid and globally
transformative technological development

vacuum tubes were absolutely necessary for the electronic developments post-WWI including radio, television broadacsting, and computing. however they still had many issues that were a brake on electronics development, problems eventually overcome with semiconductor transistors

by the 1930s it had become clear that solid-state devices might be a viable answer to the problems posed by tubes, problems such as delicacy, size/weight, and high power consumption

officially there was somewhat of a hiatus on semiconductor work during WWII, and indeed readers will note we are glossing over the war period almost altogether, and the role it (and figures like vannevar bush) played in the organization of the electronics industry

this is all stuff that will be examined in a second pass of this era, later.

after the war, bell labs manager mervin kelly assembled another team to try to tackle the issue - including a subject of great interest to this thread, william shockley. the text states kelly was a man with a "vision", i would assume that rather he had an assignment.

here are the three scientists who would eventually win the nobel prize for their work on transistors. "conflicts with shockley" is a theme that will play quite a role in the history of the transistor,

his "paranoid micromanagement" attracts quite a great deal of attention and indeed the man in general is just a huge magnet for attention, suspiciously so, from the beginning to the end of his story

i believe that this public-facing persona and these conflicts are an attempt at misdirection, the director telling us where to look. i think the managers of technological development had committed to much tighter control than the early radio days,

something that could be achieved as a result of the organizational developments of WWII, and i think they also committed to a strategy of obfuscation of this more-centralized development. tools in this toolkit include things like fake conflicts, overwhelming personalities

there are no doubt people who would ask, whether or not this is an excessively conspiratorial outlook and analysis of the situation. and these people will feel the same way when i get to the story of fairchild.

i would answer this in several ways, firstly if the goal is more than simply cutting and pasting ruling class-approved history then its necessary to conduct analysis that goes beyond these sources

and indeed we already have several antecedents that inform this analysis - for one, we have the fake laboratory conflicts of the SDI era embodied by teller and wood

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1346163157937528833

and for another the entire premise of this group of threads is that the elon companies and particularly obviously spacex are some kind of front and elon some kind of front man. to this end i think a very convincing line has been drawn even if you only begin the line at the sdi

establishing antecedents and working backwards from them, forward from precedents, smell-checking the narrative along the way and drawing conclusions, all of this is necessary to go beyond the sanctioned history

just as teller and wood serve as an antecedent to examine this lab conflict as a precedent, and we can now reexamine the antecedent in context of what we have learned with the new precedent. and this applies to elon and shockley, silicon valley and early radio, and on and on

mm so antecedent is actually a synonym for precedent but i dont know the word for what i mean, you know what i mean

so with that lets return to shockley:

after missing out on the initial invention, shockley busts out an entire theory of bipolar junction transistors in two months and even the author here notes the strangeness of this. this is quite certainly a point of interest from the perspective of obfuscated development

after 1950 transistor development begins to extend beyond bell labs, though we can assume indeed there was no conflict between AT&T and the military or anything like that

shockley struck out on his own in 1955, but worth noting here the rise of texas instruments

an important figure in the history of transistors is gordon teal, also a bell labs alumnus, who migrated to TI and led the team which would develop the first commercial silicon transistor as well as the first integrated circuit

the high-level preview of what is about to come, is that in a few short years from 1955 when shockley left bell to 1959, shockley semiconductor rose and fell, fairchild was spun off, and the planar process which enabled integrated circuitry was developed under their auspices

shockley shockley shockley, im going to now continue to talk about shockley for quite some time and you can see that im being very serious when i say he really occupies an outsize amount of attention in our story

i will let this image speak for itself:

so simultaneously to his revelatory period with conjunction transistors, shockley also had an intense focus on automation and warfare driven by machine vision. remember this when we get to his interests *after* his semiconductor period.

i would use this image as evidence that by now the problems have been clarified, the 'dream' has crystallized into a final solution

shockley, apparently, was very enthusiastic about his "optoelectronic eye" and one of the earlier figures he discussed it with was geroges doriot. doriot is an extremely important figure in venture capital, in the very end of this thread we will circle back and briefly cover vc

doriot is like the vannevar bush of vc, and one of the *many* of his students who played an important role in venture capital and financing high technology is arthur rock. keep this in mind for later, for now just remember he studied under doriot who helped shockley with his eye

shockley here is posed as thinking very far ahead of his time, but shouldnt we be somewhat skeptical of this posing? remember that shockley is in many ways prefiguring elements that we have observed in the sdi, and is the figure our attention is directed to

if there is an element of misdirection in his focus, i would point to perhaps the idea of a mass unleash of productive robots. this would be untenable without mechanisms of control to deal with the automated-out humans, which is why the pace of automation is heavily moderated

and i think his emphasis on 'forward thinking' is something meant to form his character as seen by future generations post-semiconductor era, complimenting the... other aspects introduced in this period. if you already know, you already know. ill get back to this later

the rejection of the robot eye was the "catalyst", again be wary of the official narrative, for shockley's eventual split with bell labs. so after failing to get support for his machine vision bombing plan, he winds up at the pentagon as director of research for weapons systems..

advising the US military on how it could potentially win a nuclear war. okey dokey then. let that sink in, i guess.

going back to the previous image, a couple years after bell's rejection he received an invitation from arnold beckman, extremely influential businessman with regards to instrumentation technology, to attend a gala honoring him and the aforementioned lee de forest.

here is some backstory on beckman, whose "interest" in shockley stems from their shared enthusiasm for automation

the two hit it off, and beckman agreed to evaluate the eye patent. evaluated by one of beckman's engineers, they went the way of bell and declined to support the project with a warm and open-ended rejection.

this was a busy period for shockley, earlier in the year he rejected offers from howard hughes (imo probably a prototypical "fake") and academia, and by june he left bell labs formally. his relationship with bell was warm even after their 1952 rejection though,

with mervin kelly introducing him to laurence rockefeller. rockefeller is posed as a rival to doriot, and coincidentally he too incorporated his vc vehicle in 1946. interestingly though, in 1955 shock is posed as seeking to start his own semiconductor firm despite rejecting hughs

the proposal itself is a little funny, shockley wants to basically.. take the work done at bell and start his own company. the idea being he could outmaneuver the large players and quickly bring junction transistors to mass production

transistors held a particular interest for the us military for use in ICBMs due to several of their properties

and again, see how even the author notes the absurdity of shockley's proposal! this all should be setting off alarm bells in the reader, this is a cover story. shockley was courted again by Ramo Wooldridge -

Ramo Wooldridge became TRW, which we have come across extensively with regards to the sdi and spacex

after rejecting the RW offer, shock finally called back beckman and mentioned his semiconductor idea. "surprisingly", beckman was immediately interested

jumping sources here, in case the repetition is jarring. chemical plants and refineries posed a great opportunity for transistors due to their harsh environments, and this was an opportunity suited for beckman's instrumentation business

in september of 1955, shockley semiconductor lab was formed under the control of beckman instruments. the lab was located in palo alto, finally the silicon had arrived at the valley.

shockley semi was to be exceptionally short lived though - founded in the end of 1955, by 1957 eight of its luminaries struck out on their own to found the "legendary" fairchild semiconductors. thus beginning the winding down of william shockley

after the "talent" left the "company", shockley went on to be a professor at stanford and became notable for a very different set of interests. so, before we move on to the fairchild story and the preceding details at shockley semi, lets quickly recap the automation aspect -

note again that despite its very brief existence shockley semiconductor lab was truly the beginning of silicon valley

the importance of doriot in the 40s and 50s automation movement, and indeed his relation to the creation of the term itself, is highlighted. all of this is meaningful dna for the explosion of silicon electronics

doriot's student diebold was an important early theoretician on the subject

again at the time of his meeting with shockley, doriot was a leading *east coast* venture capitalist funding high tech startups from east coast universities. also, notably, he and shockley were already on a first name basis by the time of their correspondence

beckman became openly associated with the automation movement in the early 1950s, and i want to note about beckman doriot and all of the other patrons of the electronics industry going back to the early wireless era -

these people represent the outer layer of the inner network that we are trying to reveal and study. each of these known names who "patronized" these inventors and startups represents a possible entrypoint into this circle, which has taken great precautions to obscure itself

beckman's company was on the rise after wwii, and on the previous note wwii definitely encompasses the formation of yet another outer layer around this network, and his activities position him well to be a lower-level but reliable agent on behalf of this group

his rhetoric and the narrative around him make it very interesting indeed that he decided to pass up on the optoelectronic eye

now with all of this in mind, lets examine shockley's rebranding after he left industry and resigned to a stanford professorship:

is *this* nazi enough yet?

this, all of it, early radio, the nazis, semiconductors, depopulation, it is all the same plan and the same planners

recall that earlier i mentioned the "forward thinking" aspect of the shockley character as something that connects to this new over-the-top eugenic aspect as part of how he is to be seen by future generations. there are i think a couple of things going on here:

for one i think the flaming and overt nazism was introduced to truly "burn" the character of shockley, to make him toxic enough that in some sense the suspicious earlier aspects of his story will be overlooked. at any rate, in a bizarre way it facilitates a fade into obscurity

but there is another curious aspect - this particular combination of technological ingenuity and scientific contribution with an almost grotesque and cartoonish racism i think prefigures modern figures like peter thiel, the "alt right"/silval connection, and racist 4ch-n culture

as if shockley's "transformation" was supposed to make him a kind of anti-hero to a nascent tech culture, and seed these kinds of "race science" eugenic ideas into the fabric of the personal computer movement.

4ch-n and racist incel culture i think inherit from shockley so strikingly that it seems in my opinion to be planned from the beginning

ok, now, finally, we move on to the story of fairchild. lets recap:

but before we do, lets note the use of the phrase "successful failure", does that sound familiar? this was the entire theme of the previous thread

we can place shockley semi alongside nazism, general magic, the sdi, and all of the other "successful failures"

anyway, note also the phrase the "traitorous eight" - these are the subjects of interest for the next part of our saga, and really i think we are overdue for some new characters at this point

actually i have to make a small correction, which doesnt affect the overall shape of our analysis but rather the tones and colors, and i would like to get the tones and colors correct as well -

shockley did not fade into obscurity, but rather his rebrand launched him into the public eye with interviews and debates, and the controversy surrounding his new eugenic brand perhaps made him *more* of a public figure than his scientific work. thats all on this for now.

this if anything i think strengthens the 'misdirection' aspect of burning the node between bell and fairchild and also speaks to his role as a prototype edgelord

but back to the traitorous eight - after shockley assembled his team, all was not well. shockleys "management style" quickly caused resentment for his team, and so the story goes he doubled down on his flaws

speaking of taking weird psychological notes, his interview process allegedly also involved bizarre psychological and iq testing and analysis.

here we find a precedent to the organizational aspects of modern military front companies like theranos - bizarre siloing of employees, paranoia and suspicion, overhanded control

the first image mentioned the 'pin incident', this is one of the famous 'stories' from the shockley era. a secretary pricked her finger on a leftover pin, prompting shockley to - allegedly - subject the whole staff to lie detector tests

it got worse as pressures from beckman increased, and shockley split the company into four separate projects. allegedly shockley had it out with beckman, again this is the "story" and we shouldnt believe it

shockley's line about how he could "take this group anywhere" is particularly over the top in my opinion, considering what is coming next.

after all of this the top members of the company, represented by moore, reached over shockleys head to talk to beckman directly. they wanted shockley out of the picture or at least to stop interfering with their transistor efforts -

shockley had minimized the emphasis on practical transistor efforts, and instead focused on far-out research projects unlikely to bear fruits from a business perspective

things escalated, and beckman informed shockley of the situation

finally beckman doubled down on his support to shockley, and the story says the traitorous eight felt they had burned their bridge enough to be unable to continue at the company

the traitorous eight stepped out, and formed their own company in 1957 - i will bring back a previous image describing the overall arc of fairchild:

the eight left, founded fairchild, revolutionized transistor electronics, then scatted to the wind to form the next generation of companies that defined silicon valley

the timing as well as the funding of fairchild merits special attention. through eugene kleiner's father, supposedly the eight got linked up with investment company hayden stone. now the image doesnt mention it, but the specific employee who helped them was arthur stone -

remember i said to make note of this name, during the introduction of georges doriot? arthur rock was one of doriot's students

ha funny typo, again just to be clear, the person in question is arthur *rock*, who worked at the firm hayden *stone*.

so remember, doriot linked up early with shockley to help him with his eye patent. arthur rock is a student of doriot. here he is being presented as meeting the traitorous eight via a connection to *eugene kleiner*, one of the eight

also note: sherman fairchild is the son of an ibm cofounder, and after his fathers death was the largest shareholder of ibm from 1924 until his own passing in 1971. okay, do you see it? is it clear?

this is a nazi insider.

this is a member of the planning committee of nazism, auschwitz, the holocaust. if he is not a planning member maybe he is only outer layer, public facing layer, maybe, but he is an insider.

furthermore his interests are very interesting: he designed the first practical aerial camera. the second image speaks for itself.

now, *why* is this particularly interesting? why aerial photography?

if we reach beyond obvious immediate value, and we should because we have already observed and covered enough long-term technological planning, i believe aerial photography is an ingredient to what was at the time the depopulation scenario being labbed by nazism and wwii

lets examine other contemporaneous technological developments:

air-to-air and air-to-ground radio communication demonstrated in 1916 and 1917.

wireless telegraphy of photographs in 1924 and 1926.

radio controlled airplanes demonstrated as early as 1938 and lets just say there has has got to be a lot more to this particular story and leave it at that until returning at another time to uav history

nuclear weaponry considered possible as early as 1938, though we can imagine that this simply represents the time that *other relevant technologies* had been sufficiently developed to where it was desirable to reveal or pursue nuclear weapons openly.

and this is not some loose comment, we have observed the holding back of technologies several times in the course of these threads, notably and most obviously low earth orbit internet constellations that were developed and cancelled in the 90s and later revived

the realistic depopulation option at this time, the time of fairchild's alleged invention of aerial photography, was the combination of this photography with wireless transmission of photos to and from a command center directing remote-controlled aircraft armed with nuclear bombs

this is likely the scenario informing the einsatzgruppen's clean up practice.

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1384951592152150022

the line is being drawn. this is fairchild, who at present in our story is about to fund the company that spawned all of silicon valley and the modern computing world

back to arthur rock, rock is doriot's student. doriot and shockley are close, they have crucial history going beyond the eye patent. arthur rock is presented as connected to the eight via kleiner, but is it not more likely that instead he is connected via *shockley*, via doriot?

and that *shockley and doriot* are the key nodes in this network that determine the child nodes? now *this* too is interesting, very interesting, when compared to a phenomenon we observed with the founding of spacex:

recall, from the very beginning, that spacex's early employee pool was formed by *jim cantrell's* connections but that it is in my opinion much more likely that *mike griffin's* connections were the basis of the company.

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1313889999662710784

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1313890816604086273

i think personally this is a clear enough case of a precedent, a fingerprint, and one that serves as further indication of the continuity of this plan from then until now. the knowledge of these gambits that we have observed spanning decades is passed down, it is taught

thats why its important to group all of this research together in the same place.

now, lets return to the image before rock's discussion. we covered the funding, so lets examine the timing:

september 19th the agreement with fairchild is signed, **october 4th** sputnik launches and the "space race" begins

already transistors had proven to be not only a viable successor to the vacuum tube but a technology that reshaped what was even believed possible in the realm of electronics. and yet, a new pain point emerged - the manual labor involved in soldering everything together

this pain point not only meant that manufacture was slower and more costly, but also it put a severe brake on the continued miniaturization of electronics. this was of particular concern for military applications, and attempts were made through the 1950s to solve this problem

one of the possible solutions that emerged was the idea of a monolithic integrated circuit, in other words a circuit (and all of its components) made from a single block of semiconductor material rather than discrete components wired together.

now we may note that bell labs made reference to this type of solution as early as 1949. this is yet another case where even the author has to admit this is suspiciously prescient

and one more note before i continue: id like to be clear, though i mentioned earlier that the common historical framing is that microelectronics were a priority for *military* application, i think this is actually a little misleading

by this point it is certain that the importance of personal computing for societal control was understood. here we find an obvious parallel with radio development. so, its not so much that weapons microelectronics just happened to reduce sizes enough for personal computing,

1) weapons systems were a more immediate priority and 2) military as 'sole purchaser' was an established method to tightly moderate the industry in its early stages, other reasons as well, but the point is personal computing was also a driving factor not an incidental result

one of the important figures in integrated circuitry, indeed considered "coinventor" along with fairchild's noyce, was jack kilby:

kilby wound up, auspiciously, at texas instruments in 1958 and immediately set to work on the monolithic problem, attempting to make all of the circuit's electrical components out of silicon

kilby's tests later in 1958 proved that integration was possible.

efforts to refine the techniques of these rough demonstrations continued until early january, when supposedly a rumor about RCA prompted TI to rush a patent application

personally i find all of this, and the ensuing patent wars of the early 1960s, to be unbelievable at face value. i think it is misdirection, aimed at disguising the true organizational structure of the semiconductor industry and its research facilities.

regarding kilby himself: son of a electricity executive, wwii background in radio counterinsurgency, landed at TI in 1958 and immediately invents the IC - i dont really buy this story either, i think kilby's background proved him to be a loyal enough actor for the patent show.

but i will get to these things when it is time to examine the semiconductor arc in full and compare to the early radio and vacuum era

fairchild, it turns out, was also working on the monolithic approach by early 1959. ever posed as more practical than the shockley outfit, they had managed to get a working transistor out the door by fall '58 - to IBM, of course - and were turning a profit by the end of the year.

but transistor manufacture still had many problems. the "mesa" process exposed vulnerable parts of the transistor to impurities, resulting in reduced yields during manufacture.

one of the eight, jean joerni, came up with a new process that would leave intact a protective layer of silicon dioxide - this planar process would lead not only to more reliable transistors but also had major implications for integrated circuitry

the process was improved and fairchild was able to bring planar transistors to market by april 1960, notably supplying the minuteman program

but as for integrated circuitry: the planar process had major implications because it meant that all contacts could be limited to a single side of a silicon wafer, thus making it possible to photolithographically print entire circuits in a way that lent itself to mass production

fairchild successfully brought its integrated circuits to market in 1961 with their 'micrologic' product line

the same month, march of 1961, TI demonstrated their own solid-state computer. the example given here re: scale is legitimately worth repeating, that rooms full of vacuum tubes had been replaced by solid state microelectronics that could be carried around by individuals.

but the last paragraph is very important for us to register as well - two months later, in may of 1961 the president of the united states committed to putting a man on the moon *by the end of the decade*, cementing a guaranteed and massive source of demand for integrated circuits

we touched on this in the very early days, and at the time for me it was still a question -

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1321855565757247488

but now, with much more context, and a comprehensive history of computing and computing initiatives captured in subsequent threads, i can say with confidence that launching the integrated circuit industry was a significant thrust of the fake 'moon landing' operation.

MIT committed to using integrated circuits in the apollo guidance computer, and through 1965 this single project was the largest consumer of integrated circuits

this early demand was the jumpstart for this new globe-changing technology, which was unveiled at a time when many commercial consumers were still in the process of converting from vacuum tubes to transistors

transistor electronics continued to explode during this period, with fairchild and texas instruments leading the integrated circuitry industry

summing up, here is a small table showing the percentage of early ICs consumed by the federal government. this cushion allowed the cost of manufacture to be dramatically reduced, and roughly by the end of the decade the industry was ready to expand beyond these programs

just in time for the "moon" "landing", the integrated circuitry industry had identified the commercial needs that they could specialize their now-matured technology to meet: two particularly notable applications were
memories/data storage, and microprocessors.

there is a lot we are glossing over, here and earlier. the entire period of wwii was passed over. developments in downstream technologies such as computers and satellites. this all merits a return, at another time. for now its enough to cover silicon and semiconductor technology

note though the important role of philco in supplying IC from 1964 onward, elevating it to 'giant' status in the industry. from 1961 (when it was purchased) until the early 1970s, philco was owned by ford -

this whole story is the story of nazis, including the earliest material covered where there was more focus on westinghouse, ITT, and the unsung protagonist of the early wireless period united fruit

and i think this adds much weight to the hypothesis of last thread that nazism was planned by the allies as a trial run for a true global final solution

the nazi financial backers, their industrial collaborators, the domestic nazi science apparatus, everything has come together under one roof to launch the modern computer-enabled world in an explosion of technological development under the cover of putting a 'man on the moon'

this, indeed, is all one and the same plan

and with the trial over, the final solution began in earnest

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1382795822249639939

as stated, two of the most important items on the agenda for the expansion of integrated circuits to wider commercial applications were memory components and microprocessors

to enable the rise in computing technology, electronic storage of information was necessary. but despite huge advances from vacuum tubing to magnetic memory, this remained a pain point throughout the 1960s

by the mid 1970s, note that it is intel paving the way, integrated circuit memories had revolutionized electronic memory technology

as for microprocessors, the story goes that actually they were an afterthought compared to memory chips for the intel corporation in 1970

in 1969, intel was contracted to build a set of chips for a new calculator model. they settled on limited the number of chips to four - including a single cpu chip, which they labelled the 4004.

according to the story, intel stalled and focused on memory chips and at the last minute hired an engineer from fairchild named frederico faggin

finally busicom's representative came and found out that work on the chips had barely been started on, and in a flurry of 80 hour weeks faggin finished all of the chips including the 4004.

this was the first in a wave of microprocessors developed throughout the 1970s, and these microprocessors are what made personal computing possible. the 'seeds of change' sown indeed

intel, founded by noyce and gordon moore, amd founded by other alumni, and the other fairchild spinoffs
went on to form the backbone of the semiconductor industry in silicon valley, and here we draw this chapter to a close and begin our comparative analysis of the two periods

so, two 'eras', roughly, that we are considering: the first is the advent of radio technology through the heyday of vacuum tubes, and the second is the era of the advent of silicon transistors which we can mark roughly as being bookended by wwii and the moon 'landing'.

both periods saw rapid and unprecedented technological development with regards to electronics, and in both cases the impacts of these developments were globe-changing in scope. and this is true both from a military and industrial perspective as well as the consumer perspective.

in the first period the dynamic seems to be that a handful of dominant firms - GE, westinghouse, united fruit, AT&T - along with the US navy, carried out a policy of "crowd sourcing" innovation beyond their own houses while engaging in heavy handed moderation of new developments

local bankers and businessmen, as in the cases of nesco and ftc, would reach out to the innovators like fessenden and elwell and form companies that would then live or die according to contracts with the US navy and united fruit

in the case of ftc, stanford played a pivotal role in forming the human network of scientific talent as well as business and governmental contacts

radio exploded commercially post-wwi, and a new form of moderation was necessary. RCA became a patent trust between the giants, and took on the navy's role of determining which companies lived and died

my speculation is that at least by the beginning of this period, the first decade of the 1900s, the 'ruling clique' that is still in charge today had already been established,

using these different entities like fingers of a glove, rather than these entities 'just looking out for their own interests' so to speak. a huge amount of the sanctioned history dwells on these inter-giant patent conflicts, conflicts of interests between governmental bodies,

this i think this is obviously fake, its the exact same kind of fake drama that characterizes the liberal worldview. rather, some inner network with direct control of all major players sent out their local contacts to found and monitor the startups

one example of this i think is in ftc's beach thompson, who bought out elwell to become ftc's president. allegedly a well-connected and savvy businessman, he proceeded to change the business model and run the company more or less into the ground,

only to be conveniently saved from its desperate situation at the last minute by a huge naval contract.

recall that we saw this pattern of 'changing the product, running the company into the ground' again with shockley semiconductors, though with a very different "followup", but we will get to that shortly

with this early period, we are seeing a seemingly much more hands off approach than in the second period.

this seems to be a way for large firms to basically outsource their R&D to vulnerable companies that they controlled internally and externally, as well as the pressure of these companies depending on large naval contracts for survival serving to cheapen development

the result was that they were able to quickly incubate a powerful radio industry while maintaining tight control, and many of the important works and smaller companies were ultimately absorbed into the large companies

there is also the strategic element of dividing important developments between many companies rather than concentrating them solely under the roofs of large firms or explicitly military research institutions. but the wholesale obfuscation of the later period is comparably absent.

remember of course our focus here is mostly on research and development strategy as it pertains to the silicon valley region, rather than the military or social implications of the technologies developed

as these new technologies of this early period emerged, we can imagine that the nazi plan, the final solution - the true one - had started to come into focus if it had not already. the technologies necessary for a way out from capitalism, had begun to become available

now lets compare this with the later period, the advent and rise of semiconductor electronics:

this era is exemplified by the spectacular double spinning off of fairchild from bell labs, which truly represents a dramatic increase in the level of obfuscation taken to protect these technological developments.

in contrast to the earlier period of developments, by small companies under the thumb, reabsorbed by larger companies, now we see the industry being led by wholesale fronts that are not visibly under the thumb of any of the established electronic giants.

but even this fails to capture the level of obfuscation that characterizes this period - recall that many of the important developments occurred in a flash that even the authors of sanctioned history are forced to admit was notably strange

recall shockley's junction transistor theory

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1395733968327036937

as well as hoerni's planar process,

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1397187536984887302

and kilby's work with regards to integrated circuitry

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1397177533422923776

rather it seems to me that the *entire research apparatus* is obscured and that these entities are simply laundering out the research and development that is taking place in structures that are not visible to us

we can imagine that the organizational changes necessary to support this new model took place during world war ii, when the entire scientific body was absorbed into the "war effort", and that from this point onward strategic development passes through the kaleidoscope

the work being done on behalf of the planners was shuffled and obscured so that outsiders could no longer react to or trace it by examining it as presented at face value

the impetus for this evolution is clear against the context of the rise of the soviet union as the largest and most organized threat to the planners, and wwii as an opening salvo in a final war against humanity with the goal of knocking out this threat right from the start

particularly after the failure of this objective, secrecy became much dearer to the ruling class and closer protection of its strategic assets much more important.

it is very important to note that this evolution of strategy shows an unbroken lineage with the planners of the early microwave era, smashing any notion that major technological development was mediated by competition between "independent" companies and organizations -

how can one iterate on a previous strategy unless one was privy to and well versed in the fine-grain details, planning, and execution of that previous strategy? one that was conducted in secret?

the double spinning off of fairchild and the burning of the shockley node meant that an entirely "separate" front company was at the forefront of the development of the semiconductor industry and the commercialization of semiconductor technology

we may also note that the *other* company that looms large in this developmental period was texas instruments, whose entire presence in semiconductors began with gordon teal who was himself spinning off from bell labs -

so the two dominating concerns are both bell labs spinoffs, one of which - fairchild - we are directed to focus on particularly and this one has its connection to bell severed completely with the "winding down" of shockley.

though governmental bodies maintained their critical role as sole purchasers and incubators of this industry during its early stages, the companies that brought it to market now represent a black box that we cannot penetrate by reading the official sanctioned history.

we are left to make inferences about their true nature from whatever we have been able to read of these officially sanctioned sources.

of course it almost goes without saying that we see an evolution as well with regards to government purchasing, another extreme increase in obfuscation, by the introduction of the apollo "mission" -

the apollo mission itself is a black box, where we know that there was never an actual attempt to put a man on the moon and so the budgets and aims of this mission necessarily represent a layer of confusion obscuring the actual strategic aims and methods of the planners

from this point on, silicon valley and all of the industry of the united states built off of semiconductor technology spring forth from or depend on these front nodes like fairchild and texas instruments.

we see this process repeated again with the advent of the personal computing industry, and again during the dotcom boom with the number of fakes ever increasing and the false genealogy pervading the entire visible landscape of modern technological development

this has become a dominant aspect of the the nazi plan, and our attention is inexhaustibly directed to fake billionaires like bill gates and elon musk who are direct outgrowths of this strategy. this is the true heritage of elon, and his true origin story

it is beyond reasonable doubt that the lineage of the planners examined in this thread remains unbroken until today

now with a quick overview of the origin of venture capital, we can finally draw this chapter of our research to a close.

lets return to georges doriot and the ARDC

recall that the ARDC was an early and prototypical venture capital firm founded in 1946, that doriot was closely connected to shockley during his robotic eye period, and that doriot's student arthur rock was instrumental in financing fairchild

so the story goes, ARDC and venture capital were the product of a set of concerns held by the new england elite that capital was reluctant to finance new and innovative startups that had the potential to birth 'new industries' in the wake of the great depression

notable influential figures addressing this problem include karl compton, the president of MIT, and several "prominent new england businesspersons". note, they identify the problem as a reluctance in large firms to invest in new industries that would serve public interest

now this is very funny considering everything we learned in the first section of this thread, where we in fact observed precisely the development of "new industries" related to wireless technology, and the relation of larger firms to this development

so this whole narrative rings very false, that venture capital was some revelatory innovation borne out of the efforts of this new england clique. this was a solved problem, and what was needed was not a novel solution but rather a refinement of the previous solution

recall also that i mentioned doriot as being like the vannevar bush of vc -

we have largely omitted bush's role because it pertains to the wwii period which merits a deeper examination at another time. but in short, bush was a pivotal figure in the reorganization of the R&D apparatus during the war years

many influential scientists and organizing figures of the war and postwar period are closely tied to bush, including students of his like frederick terman who figured prominently in the early wireless period in the bay area and is commonly described as a father of silicon valley

so the basis of this comparison between doriot and bush is that both allegedly represent nodes to which the entire modern technology apparatus connect back to. and people who are steeped in ruling class sanctioned history will balk at the continued use of words like 'allegedly' -

that is because they eat up this stuff up without questioning it, despite exhaustive demonstration of how the official narrative fails to properly explain this history.

if our attention is constantly directed to these two nodes we should take this with a grain of salt and guess that perhaps some of these connections may be fabricated and even if they are true that the child nodes are not necessarily particularly meaningful

all of this is setup for the era of obfuscation, and so we should approach these two nodes with appropriate skepticism. but what we can see, is that the effort was made not just to cloak the R&D apparatus working on behalf of the planners but the financial apparatus as well.

the formation of the ARDC, the outgrowth of this supposed new england 'debate', finally occurred in 1946 with doriot playing a key role, and the organization's stated purpose was to help increase the standard of living by providing necessary funds to small innovative firms

there was an emphasis on the goal of raising money from institutional investors and the public, and *this* i think gets to the point. in addition to siphoning 'outsider'/mark money, technological finance could be conducted in a way that was less forensically approachable

that being said, simultaneously, many of the ruling families started their own "venture capital" firms to achieve this same sort of professionally-managed investment in smaller and riskier firms. each found their own niche, and there was little "rivalry" between these firms

but ARDC's role was clearly to involve a wider set of funds in this process, with a focus on technological innovation

after this "incubatory" period, again none of this really seems revelatory or novel *to me*, federal legislation introduced the SBIC program to encourage investment in small businesses, creating a flood of "competition" for ARD

the 1958 act that introduced this change was a part of the sweeping reaction to the sputnik launch that included the creation of NASA and ARPA, and which led as we saw earlier to the rise of the semiconductor industry

this form gained traction and led to the waning of ARDC's influence and the rise of the limited partnership as the preferred vehicle for venture capitalism -

with many ARD alumni "jumping ship" to form their own SBICs or LPs

it appears that ARD represents a jumpoff point for the spinning off of a wholesale fake "community" of ostensibly independent financial organizations, parallel to the moves we examined with fairchild

and that the preferred form became domination via
many smaller but completely controlled "front companies" rather than moderation of more or less genuinely independent small companies by visible larger companies.

as with the cloaking of the research and developmental apparatus and the productive industry that commercialized its fruit, here we see finance undergoing the same transformational cloaking, with the same form of kaleidoscopic obfuscation of its true structure

this form also allowed "taxpayer subsidy of bad investments" - in other words forms of insider fraud similar to what we observed occurring later, such as during the dot com boom.

and on that note, there was indeed a "tech crash" in 1970 that bears striking resemblance to what we have already covered:

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1315682125052407809

this indeed sounds very familiar

even the story of ross perot's stunning paper "loss" was recycled in the dotcom era -

only by then the ante was upped to a stunning 70 bn dollar loss by softbank's masayoshi son, who made up for this with his "spectacular" investment in alibaba - softbank and son merit their own treatment, at a later date, certified legends in the fake game

as we end with a review of the silicon era venture capital firms that took the reins after the spinning down of ARDC, lets review the connections back to doriot:

arthur rock

hold the RAND connection for when we get to draper but note the previous image omits that, actually rock's partner tommy davis *was also* connected to doriot via his brother who was a doriot student

bill draper, tom perkins, pitch johnson also former students

notable firms include the aforementioned davis and rock, which turned 3 million into 100 million in a short 7 years, with rock notably funding apple intel and teledyne and davis forming the mayfield fund.

and also bill draper's efforts, and there is a lot to say about bill draper's story, to say the least. his son also ended up extremely influential in vc, founding DJF, all this can be revisited later. DGA alumni and doriot student pitch johnson left DGA to do big things also.

here is a brief summary of draper's later effort sutter hill ventures as well as the mayfield fund mentioned earlier. these were some of the foundational "efforts" in vc, all of which spring forth from doriot, and from these spring forth the household names of modern technology

also worth mentioning are the sand hill road firms such as kleiner perkins and sequoia capital, which remain pillars of vc until today. the kleiner in question is eugene kleiner of fairchild, and the perkins is doriot student tom perkins.

sequoia was founded by don valentine, a raytheon alumni - raytheon of course founded by vannevar bush, but again we are avoiding to get into all this - and also a fairchild alumni.

sequoia famously funded apple computer, along with countless other companies that are now household names, all of this can also be covered later.

the only anecdote i will include is that certainly at least one fake "billionaire" hails directly from sequoia, and i include to illustrate the evolution of this earlier era of obfuscation to what came later

https://twitter.com/2youngBadazz/status/1336364778579611648

and indeed note that as the dust settled at the end of the apollo era,

venture capital set its headquarters on sand hill road - a stone's throw away from stanford and the silicon valley semiconductor industry. this completes the maneuver begun in the early microwave era to establish this region as a new epicenter of electronics

and with that we draw our first pass at the early history of silicon valley to a close.

@threadreaderapp
unroll