The Pax Silica Con

The US's "Pax Silica" sells itself as a wall against China, when it's really a cage to keep America's "partners" in - dependent on American tech, and unable to build their own.

Typically, when great powers set up an initiative that is imperialistic in nature, they pick a name that says the opposite: “alliance for progress,” “partnership for peace,” “coalition of the willing,” etc.

This time, evidently in no mood for euphemism, the US straight up called their initiative “Pax Silica,” the most imperialistic name conceivable, directly inspired by the Roman Empire.

And, if you read their so-called “Pax Silica Declaration”, they’re spelling it out quite explicitly: countries sign up, align their supply chains with Washington, shut out China (politely referred to as those engaging in “non-market practices” and “unfair dumping”), and in exchange they get access to the imperial technological ecosystem.

Lest there be any ambiguity, Under-Secretary of State Jacob Helberg - an ex-Palantir guy who is the architect behind the initiative - spells it out at the top of the page (see below 👇): whoever controls “compute and the minerals that feed it” will run the 21st century, and he wants to form a group of “aligned” countries around Washington in a “new economic security consensus” to make sure they're the ones who do.

At least it’s all clear.

It is in essence eerily similar to the Roman-era “clientela” (patronage) arrangements, whereby Rome bound “client kings” in asymmetric relationships where the clients owed loyalty, alignment, and resources, and in return were admitted to the network. A self-fulfilling prize, since the network each client was buying into consisted of nothing more than the clients who had already joined.