Nothing is Perfect

I was reading an article from KW Norton Borders about AI going rogue and for whatever reason my brain responded in an odd way. Let me try to explain.

Most “subversive” “shrew-type” articles are rather extreme these days—as they should be (in my humble opinion). There is really no point in being wishy-washy about this stuff. It is important to be very clear regarding what is probably going to happen, making the assumption, always, that not enough will be done to stop it. We must make that assumption when attempting to predict the future, as that is really the only honest way to approach it. Otherwise, the whole issue would be, well, “wishy-washy.”

That being said, I thought about a sheep reading this Rogue AI article and could just imagine them rolling their eyes. “Oh please,” they might utter, “Complete sensationalism.” But is it? Certainly, I don’t think it is, but I am sure sheep do.

Let me give you some examples. Norton, quoting a book by David Hughes (Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy), says: “…we as the citizens of this planet are suffering through the irreversible enslavement of humanity.”

Hughes elaborates:

An undeclared global class war was initiated in 2020, whose aim is the controlled demolition of liberal democracy and the institution of global technocracy—a novel, biodigital form of totalitarianism that threatens to lead to the irreversible enslavement of humanity. World War III looks nothing like its two predecessors and is waged by the transnational deep state against populations using the novel methods of Omniwar, i.e. war waged in every domain, but clandestinely, so that the public does not recognise it as such. The opening campaign of World War III involved the largest psychological warfare operation in history, which I call the “‘Covid-19’ operation.” This was intended to demoralise, disorientate, and debilitate the public, thus weakening its resistance to the intended transition to technocracy. Historically, psychological warfare has served as the prelude to physical war, raising the alarm concerning what is to come.”

Sensationalism? I certainly do not think so, but I am pretty sure most sheep would think it was nonsense. (As I commented in the other day’s article, classic “mountains out of molehills.”)

I am, as usual, troubled by this blanket dismissal of very obvious issues. I do not have a problem with people looking on the bright side with any of this stuff, but to discount it all entirely seems rather stupid (what else is new?) and certainly reckless.

The world is a complex place, and we as a global community have had to face many strange happenings throughout history. Most of these things did not typically sneak up on us with no warning. Yes, many did ultimately play out and were too difficult to stop once they started rolling, but I would say that for the most part, people looked, questioned, wondered, warned, and spoke out. Not anymore.

People (the sheep) don’t seem to pay attention to much of anything unless it is clearly packaged up and presented with absolutely no room for error. The title of this essay points that out. No theory, speculation, or prediction, is perfect, but sheep won’t listen to anything unless they think it is perfect. All they need to assure them that what they are hearing is perfect, is the consensual mainstream. If something they hear is not consensual mainstream, it is not even considered.

The people who expect the nice, neat packages will listen to someone like Fauci until the cows come home. Clearly, Fauci’s babbling is not perfect, but the people listening, and following his nonsense, think it is. These idiots presented all of this not as speculation, but as certainty. It is also presented as the mainstream thought, the ideas that fit into the societal mould of “what is right” “what is good” and “what is best for us.” If you do what they say, then the big scary virus monster will not eat you. If you do anything else, it will.

In reality no one knows exactly how anything will turn out. People like Hughes obviously have their predictions and they state them with conviction (how awkward would any book be if the author began every paragraph with, “I have reason to believe…” or even, “I think da da da…”) Nothing will play out exactly as these critical thinkers imagine, their predictions do not have to be perfect. But their thoughts, predictions, and formulations are not consensual mainstream, therefore they are not considered.

It used to be that anything would be considered if it was the least bit plausible. Or even if only out of curiosity people would investigate something before throwing it out with the bathwater. But curiosity has also made an exit from normal human behaviour. People are no longer curious about anything other than their own neck.

Back when I was a kid there were so many different ways to skin a cat that everyday folk would spend hours in coffee shops discussing this and that. The political parties each were viable and even though any particular person may have had very strong feelings about one party or another, they realized that the opposing views from the opposing party were at least viable and up for discussion. Everyone seemed to be very aware there was no silver bullet that was perfect in its ability to resolve world problems.

We were aware nothing was perfect.

Now the masses seem to think there is a silver bullet and a perfect way to resolution. They think they can sleep well at night, and continue on with their humdrum lives as long as the powers above them say it is all ok. According to them the vaccine was perfect, “You will not get Covid, nor will you transmit Covid if you get the vaccine. It is safe and effective.” Perfect.

There is a perfect solution to the conflict in Europe, “Putin is 100% wrong, Ukraine and NATO are 100% correct. Financially and militarily supporting Ukraine is the perfect way to go.” Same deal in Israel.

Yes, there is opposition to the perfect world order. Us shrews. And on some issues, more than just us shrews. But it is not enough to break the “perfect” spell and get people discussing different ideas, and different paths to solutions.

I have always considered “alternative” thought. And by “alternative” I do not mean less viable or less plausible, but ideas that may be contrary to the ruling power’s position. I think back to the day when most people considered such “alternative” ideas or solutions.

These “different” opinions only needed one criterion to make them something to consider—plausibility. How do we know if an idea is plausible or not? Well, that takes some thinking—critical thinking, and maybe even thinking outside of the box. Such things are gone. Gone with the wind.

Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here

Thanks for reading...

You can help us keep doing what we do. Every little helps and is hugely appreciated.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.