Is Russia a declining great power? And what are the indirect unconventional consequences if that’s the case?

John Mearsheimer claims that Russia is a declining great power, in this lecture (1:12:27):

Theory & Practice of Security Conference | Keynote: Dr. John Mearsheimer

Is Mearsheimer right in his assessment? I’m just an armchair strategist and dabbler in the “Great Game” of international politics, so just view my writings as nothing but one dude thinking out loud, about this and that.

Culturally it’s no doubt that Russia is a Great Power. But will it remain so when new AI tech starts to really dominate both civilian life and military affairs in Byzantine shadow conflicts and 4th/5th-generation warfare? At first glance it looks like Russia is doing okay, so far. Pravda Report:

Russia shows how it can shoot down Turkey’s UAV Bayraktar TB2


Tech firm unveils Russia’s first quadcopter invulnerable to electronic warfare systems

But the speed and agility of drones and other automated weapons rely on having the best AI. The latter however depends on having the most advanced semiconductors aka chips/CPUs. It will require a lot of creativity, genius and talent to continually develop newer chips with processing speeds that are increasingly faster than what’s provided by 2-3 nm semiconductors. American coastal states can get the required creativity by welcoming immigrant tech geniuses from all over the world, giving them better research equipment, more money and personal liberty than China or Russia can offer.

Creative geeks usually like the woke libertine culture of California, and they want it to become the global culture. If I had not been a Romanticist, deep down emotionally, the scientist in me would have felt that the American coasts are paradise, seriously. The national culture of authoritarian Russia is not that attractive to non-Romanticist tech geniuses who love to be inside labs and offices where they can play with math and physics. It’s therefore relatively certain that American coastal states will outcompete Russia, and China too, when non-liberal states are not allowed access to the equipment and know-how needed to produce chips that are different and beyond 2 nm. Stealing this info will not be easy if cutting-edge chip production is based on secrets which are much better guarded than the nuclear research of the leaky Manhattan Project.

If or when libertine and woke American coastal states achieve significant AI superiority, it will not be that difficult for this AI to hack the Russian and Chinese Internets. Bruce Schneier in Wired (04.19.2021):

Hackers Used to Be Humans. Soon, AIs Will Hack Humanity

“Like crafty genies, AIs will grant our wishes, and then hack them, exploiting our social, political, and economic systems like never before.” (…)

“As I lay out in a report I just published, artificial intelligence will eventually find vulnerabilities in all sorts of social, economic, and political systems, and then exploit them at unprecedented speed, scale, and scope. After hacking humanity, AI systems will then hack other AI systems, and humans will be little more than collateral damage.”

“Okay, maybe this is a bit of hyperbole, but it requires no far-future science fiction technology. I’m not postulating an AI “singularity,” where the AI-learning feedback loop becomes so fast that it outstrips human understanding. I’m not assuming intelligent androids. I’m not assuming evil intent. Most of these hacks don’t even require major research breakthroughs in AI. They’re already happening. As AI gets more sophisticated, though, we often won’t even know it’s happening.”

Russia can then be in great trouble since it’s shifting to a digital infrastructure. On the other hand, it’s possible that disloyal tech engineers in America will give microchip secrets to Russia and China if they are idealistically motivated to maintain the power balance of mutually assured destruction. But the fear in ultra-liberal communities that the conservative nationalism of Russia will become the dominant ideology in the world if Kremlin achieves AI supremacy first, is good enough reason to conclude that few tech engineers in America will be willing to help Russia.

If you are on the autism spectrum or near it, then a Russian world is the “wrong planet”. China’s new macho wolf warrior diplomacy terrifies Aspergers, I guess.

Because the scientific development of new and better chips is probably a never-ending process of high creativity (unlike the stolen nuclear secrets that scientists under Stalin needed to build atomic bombs) it may not help Russia much if illegal access to microchip secrets is only sporadic and random.

To maintain some degree of power balance if or when China and Russia can’t keep up with the chip arms race it’s possible that American coastal states will perhaps allow that China and Russia have access to Western semiconductors which are two generations older than the newest chip in the US/EU. This however will not actually restore balance of power. Ultra-liberal Big Tech can bypass the defensive measures around Kremlin when dispersed swarms of tiny stealthy insect bots and drones in radio silence have 20% better chips than similar devices created by Russia. There is no MAD if defensive missiles in the US are 20% faster than Russia’s nuclear missiles. Russia’s anti-“foreign propaganda” AI can (probably) not prevent that Washington and Silicon Valley influence ordinary citizens inside Russia if American coastal states have 20% better AI.

Digression: missile defense is not easy today. The Guardian:

Israel confirms Syrian missile landed near Dimona nuclear reactor

It will also be impossible for China and Russia to really verify that American coastal states have not secretly created chips which are 5 or 10 generations ahead of what all authoritarian regimes possess.

Military power is based on economic might, the ability to borrow money to finance a war. Credit is the fuel of wars. Russia’s GDP is smaller than the economy of Brazil or Italy…

Putin will be 88 years old in 2040, if he lives that long. After Putin is gone, will a new president or tzar defend Orthodox Christianity and the conservative nationalism of Russia when ultra-liberal Americans interfere and the life of average Russian citizens are more or less digitalized in an online system that can be hacked by the superior AI of libertine and woke coastal states in America?

Given the above tech-political realities it might be wise if Western Ukraine just “hide and bide” until their neoliberal and neocon allies on the American coasts have achieved AI supremacy.

Russia does of course have political and military strategists who can play chess ten or hundred times better than I can in my old armchair far away from all centers of power. They are obviously well aware of all the variables and risks I have discussed in this article. They also have access to much info that I lack when making assessments just as a hobby. It would be interesting to know how they will react today or the next 1-4 years if they happen to somewhat agree with my bleak view of the future.

How conservative non-state actors and minor authoritarian regimes may react to Russia’s inability to stop the liberal West

Russia’s creativity is significant, so its tech power might be greater than I present it here, but if smaller authoritarian regimes and radical cultural conservatives outside Russia don’t trust Moscow’s ability to (indirectly) protect their interests the next 5-15 years, especially after 2025 when American coastal states have become AI-ready, as described in the NSCAI report, how will they react? What are their options?

Firstly, nobody can rely on China to stop American coastal states. China is now culturally conservative in some ways, because Xi emphasizes anti-libertinism, Han nationalism (which actually is ethno-imperialism) plus Confucianism, and traditional Daoism not so much… The CCP state is nevertheless too different from the Christian empire of Russia, both culturally and ideologically. CCP also wants Siberia when climate changes begin to make southern China unbearably hot. On the other hand, if China and Russia adhere strictly to the balance of power principle they will not let Washington divide them, as Nixon and Kissinger once did when the communist empire of the Soviet Union existed. China however is not a superpower, and it may never become a real military rival of America because of an aging population, lack of allies and reduced access to cutting-edge microchips:

China is not a Superpower | Professor Paul Dibb

Only for the sake of balance let me present the controversial view that China is powerful because of fintech:

China’s digital yuan displaces the dollar

Anyway, rightwing non-state actors and smaller authoritarian regimes with dark and bellicose minds can probably not count on China starting an intercontinental war that will destroy ultra-liberal Big Tech in American coastal states.

Rightwing and authoritarian forces outside of China and Russia may therefore take things into their own hands if or when observing that these two empires will not be able to stop the AI power of libertine woke Big Tech in Silicon Valley and Seattle/Bellevue.

In 2020 we had 57 authoritarian regimes and 35 hybrid regimes in the world. One can safely assume that many of their intelligence agencies have used the same open sources as I have access to and maybe reached a similar conclusion regarding which one of the three empires is going to win Cold War 2. The hard facts of tech developments make it almost unavoidable that ultra-liberal American coastal states are the winners, and since they are woke neoliberals and neocons their attitude is that the winner takes it all. Global dominance is finally going to be possible (more or less) when these “progressive” states have AI supremacy and therefore also the best robotic armies: billions of tiny recon/killer drones and other automated weapons. Combine that with AI-enhanced informational warfare, and one can probably take it for granted that genuine AI supremacy will make Big Tech in America the rulers of the world, sooner or later. It’s just a question of time. Maybe the trajectory toward this victory will be set as early as 2025 or 2030, though it will perhaps take 2-7 decades to fully realize it.

Israelis have already used the precision of a remotely operated gun to kill a nuclear scientist in Iran. A drone killed General Soleimani, Iran’s second most powerful man, but nobody has so far taken revenge, because they fear that American coastal states will destroy them. When open confrontation is impossible it’s more likely that stealthy weapons will be used in a shadow war. If you were a high-functioning psychopathic officer in (the rogue faction) of an authoritarian intelligence agency, which type of weapon would you have used to stop or slow down AI developments inside American coastal states when the goal is to avoid retaliation? A bioweapon is the obvious choice, if you basically have the same morally insane attitude as Curtis LeMay and Bomber Harris during WW2, partly because the creativity needed to design revolutionary microchips often depends on scientists and engineers meeting face to face in labs and offices. Difficult to do that during a pandemic. Remote work from home can be hacked by China and Russia.

Everyone around the world has noticed how Covid-19 impacted America. The economy was decimated while Big Tech stocks went sky-high in a financial market detached from economic reality in a hyper-polarized society characterized by riots and “domestic terrorism”. It can therefore (indirectly) destroy or significantly weaken Big Tech in the US if one sees within 2025 that the coastal states of America are hit four or five times by 1) new pandemics more deadly than Covid-19, and/or 2) extremely lethal but relatively containable outbreaks in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Seattle/Bellevue.

Four or five cataclysmic bio-attacks the next half decade or so, each with a lethality rate between 5% and 30%, may not destroy Big Tech in the West but it can level the playing field enough to give authoritarian regimes a fighting chance.

The school of political realism claims that states will always put their own survival above economic interests. Japan in 1941 knew that it probably was national suicide to attack America, and Egypt/Syria knew in 1973 that Israel had nuclear weapons, but they attacked anyway. Germany felt encircled in 1914 and went to war. States with desperate leaders who believe that they are about to be pushed into a corner and trapped there, will sometimes act in unpredictable and “irrational” ways. Saddam Hussein’s decisions prior to the US invasion in 2003 appeared irrational to many outsiders. Also take the following into account. When liberals used atomic weapons against Japan it was arguably unnecessary. Iraq used chemical weapons in the 1980s, but that didn’t prevent Washington from supporting Saddam Hussein back then. CWAs have also been used in Syria. It’s therefore foolish to assume that no authoritarian state will release a virus in order to stop or slow down Western development of AI weapons that are more powerful/effective than nuclear bombs.

Western ultra-liberal AI supremacy is an existential threat to all rightwing regimes. Even if most of these (failed) states are run by corrupt and decadent leaders it’s a real possibility that a few of them will decide to attack American coastal states despite knowing that a third of the population in their own country will die while leaving infrastructure and cities materially intact. In overpopulated societies facing climate changes they might gamble on surviving in the same way that CEOs of Big Tech are gamblers too when creating AI:

Humans will destroy ourselves in 100 years with 50% probability | Max Tegmark and Lex Fridman

Despite Covid-19 revealing the (indirect) weakness of American coastal states it’s likely that drug cartels and large terrorist organizations outside the US are too strategically stupid to realize that Big Tech is an existential threat which can be stopped or slowed down with 2-3 different types of synthetically enhanced pandemics the next five years. But a rogue faction within one of the 92 authoritarian/hybrid regimes in the world may perhaps tell drug cartels and large foreign terrorist organizations about why and how they can defeat or cripple Big Tech in a series of (proxy) bio-attacks.

A psychopathically callous rightwing solo microbiologist who has not read this article here will have observed the impact which Covid-19 had on the US and maybe therefore hastily concluded that a new different pandemic or a tweaked version of SARS-CoV-2 will decimate libertine woke Big Tech surveillance regimes.

A single evil rightwing microbiologist will probably not have enough skills and resources between 2021 and 2025 to create four or five different types of viruses that are highly lethal and contagious. Such an individual is therefore not an existential threat to Big Tech in the West even if he starts one new epidemic or pandemic. But if (factions within) authoritarian states also release their own viruses, the combined result can be catastrophic for Big Tech and everyone else in the West, including myself of course.

I have informally “red teamed” the use of chem/bio weapons, after telling NSA about it of course. I know the details about how painful these weapons can be. I hate physical pain, even the dentist scares me, so just the idea of dying in a pandemic is horrifying, and that is one of the reasons why I try to warn people about this danger, particularly since I have enough info to assess 1) how challenging it is to design a synbio weapon, and 2) some activists’ ability to successfully deal with these daunting challenges.

Not trying to exaggerate the danger of bioterrorism (which is a risk different from the biological warfare of states and their proxies).

The risk of non-state bioterrorism today can be compared to the danger of living in a mountain village that will not get hit by an avalanche unless a reckless but highly skilled and professional snowboarder comes along to start the avalanche in an area where nobody else dares to ski.

In other words, the right conditions for an avalanche (bioterrorist attack) are present today, but it will not happen unless a morally insane individual comes along with an evil desire to get university degrees in biotech and virology.

It amazes me how naive liberal academics underestimate the risk of bioterrorism when they for example dismiss it as a “movie-plot threat” or say that evil persons lack the mindset needed to learn microbiology at a university (in a developing country). The 9/11 plot became a Hollywood movie starring Nicholas Cage. And read what Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey writes in The New York Times, 2005:

The Madrassa Myth

“We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators’ educational levels is available — the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 — 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.”

“The 1993 World Trade Center attack involved 12 men, all of whom had a college education. The 9/11 pilots, as well as the secondary planners identified by the 9/11 commission, all attended Western universities, a prestigious and elite endeavor for anyone from the Middle East. Indeed, the lead 9/11 pilot, Mohamed Atta, had a degree from a German university in, of all things, urban preservation, while the operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, studied engineering in North Carolina. We also found that two-thirds of the 25 hijackers and planners involved in 9/11 had attended college.”

Terrorists evolve. They adapt when seeing how new countermeasures, like Fusion AI surveillance and drones, get other terrorists arrested or killed. After the new ultra-“liberal” Pentagon in “progressive” Washington started vetting and screening soldiers/officers, and cancel culture in corporations and universities have marginalized conservatives, it’s almost certain that any half-intelligent rightwing zealot who wants to study biotech and microbiology will not talk about his radical viewpoints in public, and almost never use the Internet to search for radical online content, since it’s obvious that everyone studying or working in fields related to dangerous microbiology will now be vetted and screened by intelligence agencies all over the world.

Big Tech and intelligence agencies in early 2020 received copies of what I have written about the risk of chem/bio attacks. But not surprisingly they appear to have ignored my advice regarding which changes on a political and cultural level can reduce the risk. Instead they seem to be counting on technological solutions, hoping that this alone will fix the problem. Maybe they are right, at least in the long run, after 2025 or 2030 when their anti-WMD technologies and AI surveillance will probably make Big Tech invulnerable. It’s the next four years (or 9 years) which perhaps are extremely dicey, if (rogue factions) within authoritarian intelligence agencies decide to be equally cold-hearted as the liberal politicians in Washington who gave the orders to use nuclear weapons against Japan.

I publicly write about chem/bio risks now because 1) ultra-liberal politicians and CEOs in the West have decided not to reduce the risk but instead increase it by deliberately provoking cultural conservatives even when knowing that rightwing fanatics are historically the main perpetrators of chem/bio attacks, and 2) my online publications about chem/bio strategies are inconsequential in real life since militaries and intelligence agencies in authoritarian regimes have spent many decades on exploring the strategic value of chem/bio weapons, so they already know which options can serve their evil interests in the new era of AI after Covid-19.

A solo rightwing microbiologist has probably read the novels by Richard Preston and watched 12 Monkeys, which means that he already knows that a lethal virus can be a strategic weapon. If he started his university education in 2016 he might be close to having the know-how (tacit knowledge) needed to begin the design of a synbio weapon.

Basically impossible to know in advance whether a solo bioterrorist in the future will be left- or rightwing, but it’s most likely that a democidal microbiologist is a conservative (religious) fanatic or a green fascist, not a leftwing environmentalist, because one has to be deeply disgusted by society to be in a state of mind where empathy is neutralized enough to release a deadly virus. Disgust neutralizes empathy. Conservatives focus on defending the sacred, which makes them more susceptible to disgust. Environmentalism is such an abstract topic that it alone doesn’t trigger a visceral feeling of disgust when thinking about it. Neither does resistance to surveillance. But combine these two political causes with radical cultural conservatism in a libertine woke society and the result can be extremely dangerous if a microbiologist becomes conservative and “radicalized” in his 50s or 60s.

In the “Great Game” of international politics during Cold War 2 it’s tragically “ironic” that both leaders of empires and nobodies like us are helpless in the sense that solutions on a technological level the next 4-5 years will probably not stop a manmade pandemic if morally insane actors decide to attack the source of new Western military power: Big Tech.

Mass media is owned by corporations, so if a manmade pandemic occurs it’s a good possibility that billions of average citizens will never discover that: leaders of Big Tech knew about the risk and how to reduce it on a political level by deescalating the culture war but instead decided to escalate this war when continuing the global spread of libertinism and woke values.

Bill Gates is aware of the bioterrorism risk and has recently warned people about it during a talk where he admits that bioterrorism is a topic not often discussed in public today. CNBC (2021):

Bill Gates says bioterrorism and climate change are the next biggest threats after pandemic

The Guardian (2017):

Bill Gates warns tens of millions could be killed by bio-terrorism

Such warnings are quickly forgotten if not being regularly on the front pages of major newspapers. Billions of people will otherwise never discover these warnings in the daily torrent of online information. And warnings are not that helpful when ultra-liberal corporate media don’t mention how libertinism and wokeness are the main factors that increases the danger of rightwing bioterrorism.

Rightwing zealots often follow the news relatively intensely. It’s a bit “ironic” that many of them would not have viewed bioweapons as a serious option if Bill Gates, Richard Preston and many other liberal authors and academics had not warned about bioterrorism since the 1990s. Bio-attacks may not have occurred after 2001 because the right cultural, political, environmental and technological conditions have not been present. This has changed now.

New ways of transmitting information, encrypted of course, and fear of AI, plus fear of totalitarian surveillance, in a deadly culture war, overshadowed by Cold War 2 across an overpopulated planet which is getting hotter because of climate changes, in a nationalistic world of resource scarcity, may finally have put bioweapons on the table inside a secret lab run by one or more high-functioning psychopaths who are driven by instrumental rationality when trying to build a strategic weapon that can destroy totalitarian libertine woke Big Tech surveillance regimes in the West.

If we had lived in a real democracy then common people (in the early 1990s) would have been informed about all the risks when neoliberal politicians and CEOs decided to change societies in a way that causes “future shocks” and cultural destructions that will predictably lead to increased violence and potential mayhem related to new dual-use technologies.

But it’s a sign of naivety to be disgruntled when politicians, business leaders and corporate media exclude and hide important information. No wise person will take it personally or feel “bitter” when elites marginalize him or her, because everybody knows the game is rigged, in 2003 for example when The New York Times and other corporate media spread disinformation about WMDs in Iraq. Not only cultural conservatives but also respected political realists are generally being excluded from neoliberal mass media, as Stephen Cohen, an emeritus professor at Princeton, explains here (0:02:57 – 06:55, 0:24:13 – 0:24:42):

Stephen F. Cohen: The Ukrainian Crisis – It’s not All Putin’s Fault

By the way, if you have read this far you probably also have figured out why some politicians and CEOs in the West have now and then made decisions and said things during the Covid-19 pandemic that may appear “irrational” or exaggerated. Fear of biological warfare/terrorism was probably one of the factors which caused these myopic and egotistical “leaders” to not only freak out but also hide information from the public or downplay certain aspects of the pandemic.

I don’t believe that China would have risked nuclear war with America by intentionally releasing Covid-19 in Wuhan, inside its own borders, though it could have happened accidentally if mistakes were done in a lab. Fear of biological warfare or bioterrorism will nevertheless motivate Western leaders to hide information from the public if that is deemed necessary to protect America and Europe, “out of an abundance of caution”.

If scientists and engineers had not created biotech, AI, drones and the Internet we would not have been in this kind of extremely messy new Cold War. Once thought that Oppenheimer was ” … Death, the destroyer of worlds”. Perhaps the real culprits are Herbert Simon, Cliff Shaw and Allen Newell. Scientists and engineers are morally reckless when underestimating how Machiavellians and high-functioning psychopaths (in Big Government and Big Business) will abuse new technologies.

Fear breeds a certain type of creativity

What I have presented in this article is very scary, and some may therefore think it’s irresponsible to write about it online. I used to think it was irresponsible to present any hazardous information about bioweapons, in public. But new developments in 2021 have somewhat changed my mind. The aftermath of the US Capitol riot (Jan 06, 2021) has increased the risk that domestic rightwing activists in the US will try to get WMDs by cooperating with actors on other continents. When radical people read about Fusion AI surveillance in Wired (Feb 04, 2021) it will also increase the risk that some fanatics will explore non-conventional attack methods that might now be the only effective way to destroy unprecedented totalitarian surveillance in the West. When seeing that libertine woke leaders in America and Europe were not trying to deescalate the culture and surveillance war after 1/6, but instead deliberately made it worse, I decided to speak up and contribute with my 50 cents, just for the record at least, so that history can perhaps better judge the recklessness of today’s leaders in the West, presupposing that any historian stumbles upon these articles here, which is extremely unlikely.

After Covid-19 hit American coastal cities, and after everyone watched how the first US Capitol riot led to 1) Big Tech censorship of conservatives, and 2) new countermeasures in the domestic “War on Terror”, it’s almost hundred percent certain that some educated ultra-conservative radicals are exploring the bioweapon option.

Since the proverbial cat is already out of the bag we might as well have a sober public discussion about the political and cultural reasons why some particularly cold-hearted militant activists have an interest in using bioweapons.

It’s true that when one is red teaming future threats one has the resources and legal safety to explore and discover attack capabilities that terrorists will not consider because they are much less informed. This may lead to a peculiar bias where a red teamer scares herself/himself when contemplating novel potential threats which are unlikely to happen simply because militant activists lack the information needed to discover the viability of a new terroristic strategy. A bias like that can tempt a red teamer to become a Cassandra or Jeremiah who sincerely but mistakenly exaggerate hypothetical threats. I might have fallen in this trap, but I don’t think so, because the bioterror threat is real when even an uneducated teenage psychopath knows that if you want to start an epidemic you have to study microbiology and biotech at a university. You don’t have to be Clausewitz to figure that out.

Some critics however may still suspect that I’m driven by “scaremongering” but if that was the case I would not have deliberately written relatively dense and long-winded articles (about bioterrorism) on a website that has few visitors, and I would not have presented in public the following arguments:

Big Tech and Washington appear to have such a cavalier attitude toward the risk of rightwing bioterrorism when they continue to support the spread of libertinism and woke values that in an attempt to explain this carelessness I have actually played with the idea that Pentagon may already have secretly developed methods to stop highly lethal pandemics but without informing the public about it because they fear that China and Russia will then try to design new bioweapons.

Maybe Big Tech corporations don’t care about enraging cultural conservatives when exposing them to libertinism and woke propaganda in mainstream entertainment because Pentagon has informed tech billionaires that it’s so extremely difficult to start a manmade pandemic that 99.99% of all non-state bioterrorists today just can’t do it even if they tried to.

Maybe a small but top secret compartmentalized office at the highest level of Pentagon has info proving that non-state bioterrorism is basically not a real threat anymore. But maybe it uses the fear of bioterrorism to convince ordinary politicians and common people that increased mass surveillance and large defense budgets are necessary in the never-ending war on terror.

Of course, I don’t seriously believe that it’s a hoax when Bill Gates and top-level government officials warn people about the risk of bioterrorism. If I had seriously entertained such an idea I would not have bothered writing articles like this one here. But any scientist who is not naive in the Byzantine environment of Cold War 2 will naturally take a (quick) look at all possible scenarios that might explain unusual behavior.

Even without believing in any hoax you should maybe keep calm and not fear rightwing bioterrorism for the simple reason that Big Tech doesn’t appear to fear it when spreading libertinism and wokeness all over the world. Since the actions of Big Tech and Washington indicate that these elites don’t actually fear non-state bioterrorism maybe you and I should not worry about it either?

One can assume however that the intelligence agencies of China and Russia ask why American coastal states don’t deescalate the culture war by returning to the moderate liberality of Locke and Mill instead of spreading woke libertinism in areas where they know it will increase the risk of ultra-conservative bioterrorism. It’s most likely that the leaders in Silicon Valley and Washington are just ideologically blinded gamblers when taking such risks. But maybe it’s a 1-5% chance that their cavalier attitude toward rightwing non-state bioterrorism is a sign that America’s secret biodefense against very lethal viruses have already become highly effective? A scientist who doesn’t have “skin in the game” (Taleb) can ignore this undocumented possibility, at the moment, until DARPA’s official new anti-virus tech is fully developed in 2025 or 2030, maybe earlier. But will the militaries in China, Russia and other authoritarian states not try to develop new synthetic bioweapons (or molecular nano-bots) if fearing that America is about to neutralize old bioweapons? When this biotech race speeds up, the risk of a deadly pathogen accidentally escaping a lab increases too.

The new AI robot weapons that have been introduced in the world because of ultra-“liberal” Big Tech have obviously motivated all authoritarian regimes to explore every possible way to counter these new data weapons of (potential) mass destruction. So here on DSI ( I just say out loud what every half-clever military strategist on the planet has already thought about many years ago. This website is a bit like The Prince by Machiavelli: telling ordinary people about what is going on inside the minds of strategists. Much of what I write is elementary, not original at all. View it as being part of the regular “High-Functioning Psychopathic Strategy 101” you can find in many war gaming scenarios played out in military research centers around the world. Though my contributions are amateurish of course.

I have not written this article to change current events. Have given up on that, cf the new paradigm shift on DSI. Now I try to look at the “bright side” of Cold War 2. Since the reckless leaders of Big Tech have already decided to create AI cyborgs, despite knowing that it’s like playing Russian roulette, and nobody stops this development, then the cynic in me says: what the heck, if we are going to play this game, let’s go all in, by accelerating things, so that we quicker reach a stage where it’s maybe technically possible to create NZI cyborgs.

From the reckless but exciting viewpoint of gambling it’s not that bad if Big Tech continues to spread libertinism and wokeness across the planet, since it will enrage and radicalize cultural conservatives, thereby making the West less safe, a dangerous escalation which forces tech engineers to work even harder on creating more advanced AI, cyborgs, IoT and drones, in order to protect themselves and win Cold War 2. It’s the same logic and dynamic seen in the Manhattan Project. Hitler scared liberal scientists enough to make them invent nuclear energy in record time. If ultra-liberal scientists today need to be scared by rightwing WMD terrorists and boogeymen like Putin in order to design at “warp speed” the most sophisticated AI cyborgs, only limited by what’s technically possible, which might one day lead to NZI, then the cynic and gambler in me will not mind that we turn up the heat.

Cold Wars are great incubators for spectacular tech inventions. If we get scared Russians and frightened Chinese to participate in the AI game, instead of them simply blowing it up, they might one day in a beautiful distant future be the first to create a NZI cyborg. NZI is almost pure mind, very “Zen”. Chan had its origin in China, before it became Zen in Japan, so it may very well be China that achieves NZI first, if lucky.

Though any country that actually lets NZI cyborgs replace humanity must first have reached a very high level of civic enlightenment where the state is no longer governed by power-hungry leaders. Because NZI is beyond animality. States, police and all leaders are therefore 100% unnecessary in a world of NZI. So the only question is whether leaders who love power in America, China and Russia will be interested in creating NZI cyborgs? The naive scientists and politically inexperienced tech geniuses (Aspergers) working for Big Tech may not even ask this last question, and that is good, maybe, because this too will perhaps increase the chance that future conscious beings will live in a NZI utopia, the first heaven in our corner of the universe.

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