The Shape of Things to Come

 

“Anything possible of being believed,” William Blake proposed, “is an image of truth.”

This is not, I think, an expression of existentialism, not “reality is a function of belief.” Blake is saying that belief is a function of reality. This is Plato’s ideal forms. Blake also said “we are born as a garden already planted.” 

We are all programmed by God, we are given an operating system, and our imaginings are not random. This is why all cultures imagine dragons, and unicorns, and sirens. These do not come from sense experience. They are ideal forms. God is telling us something.

And here’s an interesting possible corollary: any invention we often dream of will probably come to pass. It is like a promise from God that this thing can be done, and indeed a commandment to do so. 

Man has always dreamt of flying. Since Icarus and before; everyone dreams of flying. People thought it was impossible. We still do not understand the physics. But finally, in 1903, we got off the ground with full control. The dream drove us until we did it, and assured us it could be done. 

Man has always dreamt of going to the moon. In 1969, we succeeded. The dream drove us, and finally it was done. 

Science fiction imagined the tablet computer before there were desktop computers--they are seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey. They were inevitable. So Steve Jobs created them.

Chester Gould imagined the cell phone, in effect, in his Dick Tracy comic strip in 1946. Arthur C. Clarke predicted them. So Nokia did it.

Granted, you might suggest this idea is overly materialistic. All these things will after all be possible and achieved in heaven. There would seem therefore no need to predict them on earth. But if they are only about heaven, there is also no need for God to send us these ideas now. At the end of time, the physical world will be redeemed as well. That is what we are here to do. Blessed are the poets, but also, blessed are the engineers.

Mind you, our nightmares are also predictive. Jack Kerouac, in an offhand passage, saw Arabs blowing up Manhattan in On the Road, circa 1949. It was something that was bound to happen. We also have visions of plague, and holocaust, and rivers of blood and fire.

The good news is that our nightmares are less likely to come true than our wishes—because fewer people are inclined to invest great effort into making evil or horrible things a reality. Though some, unfortunately, will.

The futurists commonly say that it is impossible to see beyond the singularity—things become unpredictable once computers are smarter than people. But I think our dreams are a good indicator. It will not be beyond our imaginings; our imaginings are the best guide. What have we been dreaming of?

Flying cars. Everybody has been dreaming about personal flying vehicles, for hundreds of years—arguably, this was always the full flying dream. Not sitting in a jet—flying on your own. That’s bound to come, and soon. 

Humanoid robots. We have been imagining mechanical men since at least Talos in the Argonautica. Realistic robots are almost at the assembly line stage already. Humanoid robots are in part nightmarish, but also of obvious appeal—they can do all the work for us, promising a life of leisure. The drive to create tools, then machines, has always been a dream ending in humanoid robots doing all our chores for us.

The fountain of youth. This dream was hoary by the time of Ponce de Leon. It is everywhere in ancient tales. This is surely coming. Some predict it within five years. “Don’t die within the next five years.”

Turning lead into gold. This was the dream on which ancient alchemy was founded, and modern chemistry was founded on alchemy in turn. The idea of transmuting any one material into any other. This is theoretically feasible with nuclear fusion, and we seem to be getting close to “cold fusion.” A San Francisco company, Marathon Fusion, actually claims they have now managed to turn mercury into gold.

Surely we have dreamt of the Babelfish; as the name suggests, this goes back as far as the Tower of Babel. A possible universal translator, ending the mutual incomprehensibility of languages. This seems extremely close now. Products are on the market that claim to do this. 

The time machine. Since we can dream it, following Blake’s principle, it must be possible. And it is, to me, a more plausible explanation for UAPs/UFOs than the usual one, of touring aliens. UFOs could be visitors from our own future. 

However, our visions of time machines tend to be nightmarish—as in H.G. Wells’s novel. So it is less likely that we will concentrate on creating this. Or use it much.

A cloak of invisibility. We have dreamt of this since the legend of Perseus in Ancient Greece. But there are obvious problems in such a thing being generally available. So it will probably only be developed as a weapon of war. And made illegal for civilian use.

Teleportation—instantaneous movement from point to point in space. This goes back much further than Star Trek. It is the concept of the flying carpet. The dream asserts the possibility. And this is a second plausible explanation for UAPs/UFOs.

Replicators—creating things instantly to order. We’ve been working on this. Plastics are a step along this path--you can mold them into any shape you wished, and tinker with the properties. 3D printers take it to the next level. We are tinkering now with organic materials—creating plants and animals to order. Pet dinosaurs or dragons or miniature mammoths are no doubt coming. And 3D-printed food.

Synthetic women—mechanical companions for men. A vision as old, after all, as the legend of Pygmalion. Arguably as the legend of Eve being made from Adam’s rib. China is hard at work at this now. Nerdy men adept at engineering are bound to see this as a grail. A beautiful synthetic woman to cook and clean, who will never say no, who can talk to them about the things that interest them, and to have sex with as well. 

Yeah; it’s coming. As a synthetic woman will be far less expensive to feed and maintain than flesh and blood, and will never divorce and take everything he owns, men are liable to turn away from women altogether. 

This might seem cruel and unfair to women—but look around. Women can already have synthetic husbands. The government has for years taken over the traditional role of husband as provider and protector. It will step in immediately to support a unmarried woman and her children. Even sex—women have long had robotic sex available; it’s called a dildo. 

And with feminism women have already turned away from men; they have intentionally priced themselves out of the market. Sex with women has become too expensive and dangerous—look at “Me too.” Look at Russell Brand. This is just the second shoe dropping.

What about reproduction? We already have artificial insemination and IVF. Probably soon we will have artificial wombs, so any individual of either sex can choose to have a child.

What else may come? The imagination is the limit...so what can you imagine?

Russell Brand and the Hellfire Club

 

I don’t know whether Russell Brand was a rapist. The jury in his court case cannot know. There must surely be reasonable doubt. It is only one person’s word against another, over events allegedly taking place perhaps twenty years ago. There is, on the other hand, no question that Brand engaged in debauchery.

This case most clearly shows how the machine works. To get membership in the elite, to crawl to prominence,  into the cocktail circuit of those who can open doors, you first must do something debauched or immoral. It is their insurance policy. They own you. If you fail to follow orders, they have something on you, and can make it public, and call in the justice system.

It happened to Bill Cosby. Everybody knew of his alleged behaviour, and had no problem with it—until he started sounding roff on blacks taking responsibility. 

Now it has happened to Russell Brand. He was celebrated until he became a Christian, and tried to go straight. That was too dangerous to the powers that be.

I imagine Brand felt he could get away with it, because he had not actually done anything illegal. So he might expect to escape the trap. But it turns out, that is not enough. He had done enough that they could paint him as a rapist, and they did.

And others now will learn the lesson. 

Bob Dylan Meets the Pope

 Read our analysis on SubStack--and subscribe for free!

The Nazi Test--Test Yourself and See

 

If the uniform fits, wear it.

Grad students used to ponder, “If I were alive in Nazi Germany, would I resist? Or would I have been a ‘good German’?” I imagine they still may, if any of them any longer think about Nazi Germany.

Of course, they all think they would have resisted.

Probably without considering the likelihood of torture and death had they done so at the time.

But here’s a handy guide to help you answer the question:

1. 1.      Do you support abortion? Do you at least remain silent? This, after all, is a holocaust larger than that pursued by Hitler. Unlike Hitler’s, it is explicit and open. Unlike Hitler’s, the victims are self-evidently innocent. Extra points if you also support “Medical Assistance in Dying.” This is not so far removed from the Nazi concept of “life not deserving life,” and hustling in that direction.
2. 2.      Do you believe that morality is culturally relative? That is what the Nazis believed. They too rejected “conventional morality.” It served their purpose. It can justify violating any moral principle not to your or your group’s advantage. And it can justify exterminating other culture groups, on the grounds that their morality conflicts with yours.
3. 3.      Do you believe that culture is based on race? So that, for example, criticizing Islam or aboriginal culture is a form of “racism”? If so, this ultimately justifies killing those of other races on the grounds that their culture is incompatible.
4. 4.      Do you see people as “communities,” and not as individuals? This is near the core of Nazi ideology—group think and race identity.
5. 5.      Do you blame certain identifiable such “communities” for much of society’s ills? Communities based on personal characteristics, rather than ideas or opinions? For Hitler, it was the Jews, the gypsies. Perhaps for you it is the “patriarchy”—that is, men—or “the rich,” “the billionaires,” “whites,” or some other group—often enough, it is still the Jews. Do you believe, for example, that Gaza is a “holocaust,” Jews being involved, but not the war in the Ukraine, say, or in Yemen or in Sudan? This is scapegoating, and leads to the sort of mass murder Hitler engaged in.
6. 6.      Do you believe it is legitimate to break the rules if this may produce the desired result? This too was at the core of the Nazi concept.
7. 7.      Do you believe it is important to get along with those around you? Do you think virtue is found in seeking consensus and avoiding strife? If so, you would have gone along with the Nazi ideology if in Germany in the 1930s. You would not have been a Schindler.
8. 8.      Do you believe in deplatforming, shouting down, or silencing those whose opinions you consider wrong? These are the Nazi tactics, stormtrooper tactics. They are perfectly tailored to further Nazi aims.
9. 9.      Are you opposed to getting involved in foreign wars? So was Hitler—he was all about avoiding war. He led a widely promoted pacifist movement just as he invaded Poland. He wanted to achieve his aims without war. If you will not come to the aid of a distant country if they are invaded, then by the same logic, you will not come to the aid of the Jews when they are rounded up and sent off to camps. After all, it is not your business, is it? Nobody attacked you.
10. 10. Do you believe in state control and/or heavy regulation of the private sector? This is the essence of the Nazi economic program. It usefully concentrated power in the political leadership, in the state.

Give yourself ten points for each positive answer. If you score over 50, congratulations, you’re a Nazi.

A Report from the Front

It is a shocking thing to say, but it is time to say it: the present struggle between left and right politically has become a struggle between good and evil. 

The clue that tips it all off is how, the day after the Democrats scored a sweeping win in the US midterm elections, the stock markets nosedived. Clearly, in the eyes of investors, the left is opposed to the general wealth, to material progress. Given power, it is likely to make us poorer. This suggests the general theme: the left is about destroying things. 

Whenever there is a significant new discovery, or new invention, that promises to improve our lives, the left will be against it. No fracking, no GMO, no data centres, no pipelines, no new mines, no AI. Whenever possible, regulate and restrict. Granted there is some need for oversight; but the left’s reaction seems always instinctively hostile to progress. Driven, most often, by the fear that someone else might become rich.

The left pushes for mass immigration and supports Islamism, in a fairly transparent push to destroy our culture. Culture is the essence of a good life—and they want to destroy it. They oppose all sorts of traditions individually: they are against Christmas, against traditional marriage, against Thanksgiving, against Columbus Day, against Christianity, against the traditional nuclear family, and on and on. This is all “patriarchy,” and must be destroyed.

They are against beauty, one of the three transcendental values and a cornerstone of a good life. Tearing down statues, for example: a direct assault, not just on our history and culture, but also on heroism, merit, and public beauty. They push “body positivity” and deny any privilege to or acknowledgement of feminine beauty. They celebrate men grotesquely dressing up as women. They seek ugliness rather than beauty in art. 

They deny truth itself, speaking of “my truth” and declaring truth purely subjective. 

They elevate “the environment” and non-human nature over human thriving. They lament that there are “Too many humans” in the world. They will refer to humanity as a “cancer.” They will create a national park, and not only prohibit any productive activities, but even ban humans from entering.

They support killing humans directly, with abortion and, increasingly, euthanasia. 

Their economic notions are based on the sin of envy: it is not enough that everyone have their needs met. In the end, they object to anyone else having any more than they do. And they would rather everyone be poor than let someone else be rich.

They see everything as a contest for power. “The personal is political.” For the sake of achieving power, they are prepared to violate any established social norms, rules of engagement or traditional morality.

This simply can no longer be characterized as people disagreeing in good faith. This is good versus evil.

Survivalism Finds Its Moment

 Read about it on our SubStack feed.

The Vatican in Schism

 Read it on Substack.

Arius