So, what you have here is the same ideology as Adolf Hitler.

Post Reply New Topic

Not my words; I was just quoting Paul Craig Roberts ...because it sounded like a great, attention-grabbing headline.

A lot of people have that ideology this day in age. Susan Wright is a good example of such a person. Jenny McCarthy is another good example. Andrew Wakefield was a prime example as well. There are people who who say they hate Hitler and yet they believe in abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. They hate him and yet they have some of his ideologies.

I do think neoconservatives and neoliberals turn to war and treats of war too quickly to solve problems. The world is getting hairy in terms of just who can assert what destructive power and thinking of just many people have been able to fly helicopter drones onto aircraft carriers or within feet of heads of state it would suggest that we're in a position, really around the world, where we're likely to have a drastic reduction of freedom and a drastic increase of states attempting to reign personal power and technical leverage back in. This is part of why I also think that the social credit system that we see in China right now is probably a prototyping strategy for the rest of the world and who knows, it could come to pass that we'll see some sort of Confucianism or neo-Confucianism go along with that because it would be a highly practical combination.

I think what's most likely with our security apparatus is this:

1) Most agencies, bureaucracies, like any other system want to grow and thrive - even if their growing and thriving is orthogonal to the well-being of the public if and when it grows beyond the purpose it was designed to serve.

2) They really are frightened right now with the technological arms race, with the question of who will have AI first, with the question of whether countries like China and Russia will be the first to concoct genetic super-soldiers (which DARPA may not have the stomach for), my guess is that the latter while macabre is a lot less effective than even the first - the fight for generalized AI, the fight to see who will have accelerated technological dominance, and then from there the questions of how democratization of such leverage would threaten world security.

In a lot of ways there's significantly scarier stuff going, with respect to pure chaotic potential, than who might be gearing their armies up to do what. In some ways the threat of terrorism by such technologically accelerated means is more disturbing, harder to detect, and it could have the potential to even accelerate our loss of freedom as each such act of mass destruction would cause those in power to even bite off more of their fingernails.

If everyone's flying by the seat of their pants right now I don't know how much it will matter what Putin and Aleksandr Dugin are talking about. If one country decides to invade another clearly that won't be something the international community will want to tolerate but past that I think things are too unpredictable for us to relaunch into cold war type thinking and have it actually be affective, aside from maybe putting a lot more eggs in the basket of cyber security.

As for the future of hot-war, I'm really starting to wonder if we'll see increasingly less of it and more use of data, algorithms, and AI. In one way it's better if the result of that is more crippling of assets and less carnage, but it's also terrifying in the sense that if someone has their power grid controlled by systems that can be hacked or, maybe the most visceral image - nuclear reactors that can be hacked, you can see the potential for that to get really ugly real fast.