Cold War 2 as surveillance justification

Hawks in Big Tech are basically claiming that the current 4IR race – the race toward developing AI and cyborg biotech in the fourth industrial revolution – is inevitable, a necessity or a natural law almost, because if the US/EU are not the first to achieve 4IR tech supremacy, then China and Russia will rule the world.

I reject the determinism expressed above, but not because I deny that there is a 4IR tech arms race going on today. Instead I will argue that cultural conservatives should rely primarily on 3IR weapons, including very highly protected nuclear missiles, to deter attacks on constitutional democracies in the West.

However, one of the best arguments in favor of Big Tech companies, situated on the ultra-liberal coasts of America, is that democracies may eventually need 4IR weapons if Cold War 2 develops into a very lethal conflict. Even if that is a pretty good argument, at first glance, it doesn’t mean that cultural conservatives must obey it, but let us in any case study how Cold War 2 has an impact on tech developments and surveillance.

Some experts claim that it’s an exaggeration, or scaremongering, to describe the current international situation as being a new Cold War. Here are five reasons why I think it’s objectively correct to use the concept “Cold War 2” when describing the most dangerous aspect of global affairs today:

Firstly, there is a hot war between Russia and pro-Western forces in Europe right now, in Ukraine. There is a hot war in Syria where the US and Russia have fought on different sides. And there is a military build-up in Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Secondly, when Russian and American forces have infiltrated each other’s electric grid, through hacking, it can’t get much colder than that.

Thirdly, we now gradually see the creation of two international blocks which divide ultra-liberal regimes and authoritarian states. Each block is increasingly getting its own infrastructure and economic independence, cf the Road and Belt Initiative for example. Consequently, Western economic boycott of Russia has not been very effective.

Fourthly, Putin has said that world domination will be determined by who develops superior AI.

Putin: Leader in artificial intelligence will rule world

Control over territories was important in the first Cold War. But power today is determined by who controls 4IR tech. It’s a saying that generals are preparing to fight the next war in the same way they won the previous war. Cold War 2 however requires a different type of warfare than the first Cold War. To reach AI supremacy first it makes sense to keep your enemy so close that you can steal their tech secrets. This can only be achieved however by denying or downplaying the fact that a new Cold War is going on. Many Western corporations go along with this charade as long as it makes them rich.

Cold War 2 is basically 4IR War.

Fifthly, when there are three major empires on the planet, and the leader of one of them, Putin, has recently compared the global situation to the conditions in the 1930s, prior to WW2, then some academics may disagree with that description but what matters is that Russia perceives it as a relevant comparison. It can become self-fulfilling, even if it’s the wrong perception.

Putin Warns of Conflict That Would Mean “End of Our Civilization”

If you watch the video (0:8:59) in the linked article above you’ll hear that Putin says that Russia cherishes traditional values. On the other hand we have the ultra-liberal New York Times attacking rightwing Christians:

‘The Capitol Insurrection Was as Christian Nationalist as It Gets.’

It’s no doubt that rightwing Christians in the US/EU have more in common with Orthodox Christians in Russia than they have with the ultra-liberal elites running today’s surveillance states in the West. This fact will of course trigger fear in this libertine elite, motivating it to suspect that some rightwing Christians are “colluding” with Russia. That some even are proxy forces maybe. By the way, proxy warfare characterized the first Cold War. Having a (perceived) domestic enemy, inside your own state, near the Capitol, is of course also perceived as being extremely dangerous in any Cold War situation.

One can therefore expect that surveillance will increase in the West, unless the Establishment decides to depolarize the conflict by abandoning libertinism and returning to having constitutional democracies with a mainstream culture only based on moderate liberality and moderate conservatism, in the traditions of John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke.

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