Security dilemma

The security dilemma is basically a social phenomenon where the defensive military capabilities built by one state are (often) unavoidably perceived by other states as being potentially offensive capabilities which threaten the security of these other states in such a way that they feel it’s safest to increase their own defensive abilities. It’s a natural reaction that forces the first state to spend even more resources on defensive measures, trapping everyone in a vicious circle of (initially unintended) military built-up and escalation that can eventually lead to a war (that nobody actually wanted in the first place).

The security dilemma was one of the major factors that caused WW1. The tragic dynamic of this dilemma can occur between all social groups and organizations that have fundamentally colliding interests which make it reasonable for at least one of them to fear for its own safety.

When one tribe of intelligent and vulnerable carnivores meet another tribe of vulnerable and intelligent carnivores it unavoidably leads to relatively dicy interaction between them, characterized by defensive and offensive initiatives.

Human beings are vulnerable “alpha” predators (hunter-gatherers) who must live in social groups in order to survive in an often brutal environment. Each human being is therefore driven by a combination of moral cooperativeness and selfish competitiveness. It’s a mix of altruism and aggression, good and evil, defense and offense. In the field of international politics it’s therefore wise to juggle two perspectives at the same time: 1) the defensive political realism of Kenneth Waltz, and 2) the offensive political realism of John Mearsheimer.

The tradition of political idealism, aka liberalism, also plays a role, because human beings do in fact have the capacity to feel empathy and reason ethically, but personally I think it’s wise in the anarchic situation of international politics to be 1/3 idealist and 2/3 political realist.

If trust is significantly reduced between 2-4 of the most dominant social groups within the state of a constitutional democracy, then it’s natural and predictable that the security dilemma will begin to govern how these groups relate to each other, inside the state itself.

Two factors are the main causes of reduced trust within a constitutional democracy:

1) if two or more dominant social groups in a state don’t share the same emotionally based core values/interests, they will a) often perceive facts differently, because reason is usually the slave of passions, as Hume once said, and b) they will not trust that ideological or religious opponents within their own state are reporting facts in a non-partisan manner.

2) if the most powerful social groups within a democracy don’t share basic cultural values, and one of these groups acquire much more (tech) power than the others, the latter will start to fear it, and band together to fight it, if necessary.

If a group of carnivores is (self-deceptively) convinced that it has truth and ethics on its side, it will naturally fight to protect its own core values. Liberals, for example, did that during WW2. Neocons, who initially were former liberals, are willing to fight in order to spread democracy in non-Western states, as seen in Libya and Iraq for example.

Big Tech on the western coast of America is also partly driven by genuine idealism. It might be relatively self-deceptive and somewhat hypocritical but these ultra-liberals are convinced that they are the most enlightened good guys, which of course leads to a desire to convert others and spread libertinism and “woke” values on a global level, through worldwide tech infrastructure.

Globally, however, cultural conservatives are in the majority. When they observe the great power of libertine Big Tech it’s natural, according to the security dilemma and balance of power, that all cultural conservatives, no matter their creed and ethnicity, will try to fight ultra-liberal Big Tech.

When the build up of contradictory forces reaches a critical point, as seen during the Capitol riot in Washington DC, on the 6th of Jan, 2021, it will scare the (somewhat idealistically motivated) carnivores in charge of libertine Big Tech on the western coast of America. Most of them are relatively good people, more or less corrupted by power, since power corrupts everyone, also cultural conservatives. This can lead to pathological altruism, even “altruistic sociopathy”: necessary evils done by hardened minds in the name of a good cause.

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

The above shows that it’s not necessary to demonize Big Tech in order to explain why these “woke” libertines are now willing to increase surveillance and combat what they perceive to be a barbarian threat to humanity itself: white nationalism and Christian militias.

Ultra-liberal crusaders will therefore collide with the crusaders of radical conservatism. Both claiming that the other party is evil and disgusting. It’s tragic. It’s Earth. Supporters of moderate conservatism cannot surrender however, if they want their own values to survive. The ultra-liberal version of Big Tech, as seen in the West today, is an existential threat to cultural conservatism. Let’s hope for all of us that each party shows restraint in their choice of weapons in this culture war.

The best is probably a peaceful “divorce”, to let conservatives have their own state, inland. While ultra-liberals have an independent state on the coasts. The alternative is either conservative or liberal authoritarianism, on steroids, because of AI drones, IoT surveillance and cyborg biotech.

Whoever controls Big Tech will control the United States of America and the West in general, maybe the entire world. That scares the hell out of non-Western nations and empires. The whole (anarchic) situation is explosive, internally and externally. And on top of all this we have climate changes, overpopulation and naturally occurring pandemics… Perhaps moderation is a good idea? Maybe we should go back to the stability of constitutional democracies that once had a mainstream culture based on moderate liberality instead of ultra-liberalism?

This article here should be enough to prove that today’s potentially violent conflict between Big Tech and cultural conservatives (and other supporters of original humanity) is much bigger and fundamental than the “War on Terror” in the early 2000s. You can’t compare it to the conflict between FBI and terrorist groups in the last century.

What is happening today is on the scale of colliding tectonic plates. It encompasses far more than just FBI agents hunting terrorists like Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. It’s even bigger than an insurgency, because it involves a Cold Tech War between empires and nations, corporations and cartels.

Banning people from social media will therefore not solve the underlying problem, as admitted in an article published by Wired:

Big Tech Can’t Ban Its Way Out of This

Banning people online can make things much worse. Big Tech are playing into the hands of terrorists when banning conservatives from social media. Many terrorists probably cheered when Amazon banned Parler. Non-Western regimes did the same. Now it’s too late to just invite them back. The damage is done. Big Tech revealed it’s true face. It will take a genuine return to moderate liberality to restore the trust which once held the West together. Alternatively, it’s also possible to just ignore what might happen in the real world, offline, similar to how CIA didn’t pay serious attention to developments in Iran, 1979. Will the US collapse as unexpectedly as the Soviet Union? If ultra-liberals keep pushing, it might.

In one way, it’s therefore in the interest of Russia and China to use their influence and social engineering to encourage the spread of inflammatory libertinism and divisive “woke” values in the West.

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