Vicious circle of chaos & surveillance

The generation of plutocrats who now once again run America, under the one-party rule of “dinos and rinos”, is old enough to have won both WW2 and the Cold War. Kissinger is alive today and he fought in Europe during the Second World War. When one has defeated two totalitarian regimes it can understandably lead to lingering hubris, despite not having won any significant war after WW2. It’s not victory if you lose the peace after winning a war militarily.

The hubris of today’s global ultra-liberals, who no longer adhere to democratic rule based on moderate liberality and moderate conservatism, implies that they will probably not be willing to compromise after winning the US 2020 election. Compromise means a return to the moderate liberality of John Stuart Mill who basically shared the same culture and aesthetics as moderate conservatives such as Edmund Burke. This common culture no longer exists after neoliberal capitalists and international (fake or naive) socialists formed an “Unholy Alliance” where they decided in the 1990s to create a “global village” of affluent libertine multiculturalism in the West. They opened up for mass immigration for example. Neoliberals wanted cheap labor… But they pushed the envelope too far, until it broke, which resulted in a renaissance for ethno-nationalism. Whichever side you support in this cultural conflict we can probably all agree that it’s not a stable situation.

The solution is simple: go back to the moderate liberality and moderate conservatism we had in the West prior to Big Tech globalization in the 1990s. This will probably not happen, unfortunately, partly because ultra-liberals appear to believe that they can still defeat conservatism and nationalism once again, if they only wait max 25 years until 1) Big Tech surveillance is powerful enough to forever secure a libertine Brave New World, and 2) a new generation of young people view this (luxury) surveillance dystopia as natural and normal because they are born into it. This is the libertines’ long-term goal. Steven Pinker at Harvard admits it in “Enlightenment Now”, a book praised by Bill Gates, where he writes that:

“Part of the problem, over the long term, will dissipate with urbanization: you can’t keep them down on the farm. And part will dissipate with demographics. As has been said about science, sometimes society advances funeral by funeral.”

Ultra-liberals are waiting for Gen X to die. People born after 2000 is their blank slate where Big Tech code can be written, also in their DNA eventually, on the path to becoming cyborgs.

Steven Pinker represents the view that the mind/brain is a computer, cf the computational theory of mind. You can’t get any further from cultural conservatism than that. This is a war of worldviews.

The (intellectual) hubris of ultra-liberals, combined with the real fear that radical nationalists and religious zealots will turn Big Tech surveillance against them if a leader like Trump ever gets power again, have caught them in a trap, the 4IR trap:

If cultural conservatives take control over the fourth industrial revolution, it can lead to the extinction of ultra-liberality. On the other hand, if today’s global libertines control the direction of this revolution, you can say goodbye to both moderate and radical conservatism. It’s therefore in the self-interest of each side in this conflict to either win (at all costs) or create so much chaos that it destroys the brand new 4IR civilization.

The following two articles in the New York Times show that ultra-liberals are willing to fight to the bitter end, in the name of libertinism and corporate “woke” ideals, of all things.

“The military-style rifles paraded alongside banners for Donald Trump — a president who would soon be intimating his intentions to reject an unfriendly outcome of the presidential election — suggested that one of America’s two major parties was, in effect, acquiring an armed adjunct, like Hezbollah or the old Sinn Fein.”

How Armed Protests Are Creating a New Kind of Politics

“Three weeks ago, it would have been unthinkable that the United States might be a candidate for a comprehensive counterinsurgency program. But that is where we are.” (…)

“Bridging the urban-rural cultural and political gap with facts, tolerance and empathetic sincerity is a vital national project, but one which has become effectively impossible.” (…)

“For their part, Democrats would do well to avoid the more extravagant aspects of their agenda, which might confirm the worst fears of the rural heartland.” (…)

“As the Senate prepares to sit in judgment on Mr. Trump, we should be wary of the excuses put forward by his defenders — that his conviction will only divide the country further, that we should simply move on. No: It is far too late for appeasement. Those of us versed in counterinsurgency know that in violent extremism nothing succeeds like success, and that the opposite is also true.”

How to Defeat America’s Homegrown Insurgency

All in all, the articles in the New York Times are fighting words. Consequently, expect more surveillance that leads to more civil unrest which leads to more surveillance, in a vicious circle.

The frog doesn’t jump out of the water if it’s slowly cooked. If rural America starts a violent resistance now, my money is not on the CIA, given its poor track record in insurgency areas abroad. But if nobody today resists Big Tech, I will in advance congratulate transhuman ultra-liberals for having won and thereby finally eradicated cultural conservatism, once and for all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s