Because I felt the urgency of the situation, this essay is also posted on my other blog, Lasken's Log @ https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/
Don't be afraid to sound like a character in a science fiction story, because that's what you are. In this story, a New York shyster takes the presidency, undermines all of the country: rural areas, national parks, cities - in my case Los Angeles, attacking schools, social structures, economies and self-esteem - and works as well to undermine the rest of the world. If you're a science fiction fan, you know what's next (especially since Trump bombed Iran): Wars of the World, disguised as expressions of history and destiny, but in fact intended to distract attention from the real unfolding history: transition away from homo sapiens to an AI powered genetically engineered semi-human race.
We’ve been trained to attach a negative connotation to “conspiracy theory,” but you can tout this one, because it's true. Trump, at the moment, is the outward force of the conspiracy, paving the way for acolytes to make fortunes beyond Midas' dreams, and dust for the rest.
We need a new political entity to modify this conspiracy's vision, but such an entity does not seem forthcoming from conventional sources. California governor Newsom, for instance, though a decent person, does not know what he's up against, and four years is all it will take Trump to wreck the place.
What is required is a force that can move quickly and effectively. To do this it will need support, and for support it will need to espouse purposes that no one else is espousing. Here’s a suggested purpose statement, "We seek to ensure that the coming biomechanical revolution will represent more than just replacing the current human species with another species. We will seek as well to establish cultures in which the previous human model - i.e., us, or models as close to us as possible, or at least recognizably human (with some improvement permissible) - will coexist with the new synthetic, corporately controlled humanoids, retaining our human memory and identity, and, if desired, separateness. And we will do this, to the extent possible, without blowing ourselves up."
Such a purpose statement could attract funding as more people realize what is happening. So far that's not where the money has been. The money has been on sucking out every bit of sustenance left in the earth. If we don't work towards alternatives to that plan, we face multiple levels of extinction.
A spirit told me to take a previous post down, because it was unforgiving, hopeless, used ugly words like "corporatocracy" and "regional." I think it was my mother's spirit whispering that the post disturbed her. Should I just come out and say: "I believe in spirits?" No, I don't believe in spirits, I just pretend I do so that in a hidden chamber of my mind, where believing in spirits is vital, I can believe that I believe I heard my mom's spirit, telling me the post was focussed on a blur that no one will understand because no one will want to understand, and I should try again because it will work out, it will become good. She did tell me something like that, on the phone, two weeks before she died, two weeks since I had last visited her, when she said, "It's ok when you die. It really is." She didn't tell me why it's ok, or how she knew. And I didn't ask. Why didn't I ask her those questions or a million others? But what else could she have meant than, "You have a spirit, and when you die (even if a nuclear bomb lands directly on your head and your atoms are spread so far and wide they don't know they're atoms) your spirit is released, intact, with a karma that determines its circumstances, paradisical or otherwise, and you continue, and I will see you again." Is it possible to believe something without having any idea if it's true? Especially lately as humanity’s historic cycle from constructive peace to insane slaughter begins decisively to enter an insane slaughter phase, it’s nice at times to believe something pleasant, whether or not it solves anything. I took the post down because it pretended to have any idea what to do about what War called "Slippin' into Darkness," no concrete bit of advice, like, "Breathe from the stomach," nothing, so should I stop writing essays that don't offer feasible solutions (other than forming a "Foundation" which would be composed of super-cool people who pronounce judgement on everyone else)? Then what should I write? My mom says not to quote her now, to use my own words. Ok, I'll just briefly withdraw back to the "real world," if we can call it that, where it's clear that some awful event is approaching that will, in its international awfulness, be the key to unlock the accumulated fury that the corporatocracy has been stockpiling for years, a key like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, or the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, constructed to detonate carefully calibrated explosions unleashing chain reactions of violence (sorry mom, I'm almost done) which, this time, will serve as smoke screens to hide the installation of new versions of the human race, versions to which not everyone will belong, and which everyone will definitely not own. But, although no one- not the most powerful shaman or wizard- can stop this sci-fi horror story from happening in our reality, there is, I choose to believe, a spirit world. What exactly am I trying to say...that we will be saved from the darkness by spirits, my mom's and other helpful ones? I wouldn't put it like that...how about this: We will be given hints, people will be connected, you will be plugged in to a meditative world that is not at war with itself, and you will find solace.
My wife and I are in Las Vegas after a four hour drive from L.A. through the Mojave desert. I'm on my laptop on the 9th floor of the Luxor Hotel. My wife is conducting an online class across the room. I just got back from a long walk through the Luxor casino into the Mandalay Bay casino and retail area. I also wanted to walk outside for the cool desert evening, but this place is not designed for walking outside, which is a wasteland of construction and busy streets without sidewalks. I must say, though, that I adore the large copies of ancient Egyptian icons decorating the Luxor, both exterior and interior, especially Anubis in the lobby, who is, appropriately, god of the underworld, a man with a jackal’s head. The repurposed gods lacked the power to override my aversion to gambling, but they were able to make me want to stay here, I mused at our arrival, as we drove once around the entryway, flanked by imposing columns, a huge Sphinx (a lion with a man’s head, representing the sun-god Ra and a deified pharaoh), and a pyramidal hotel, before seeking the massive airport sized parking lot. What a sucker I am for falling for this commercialized extinct religion! On the other hand, the figures offer good focal points, especially this Passover week, for meditation on God's immediate purpose in launching the 10 plagues in the book of Exodus. Each of the plagues was designed to destroy a specific Egyptian god, including Anubis and Ra. The best known plague, the killing of the firstborn, was intended ultimately to kill the pharaoh, through Ra, and yet here they are, the Egyptian gods (including the pharaoh), back again in Las Vegas!
Update, Saturday, 4/19/25, 8:00 AM: The casino/resorts of Las Vegas are hermetically sealed from the surrounding desert, to maximize gambling revenue, and I long to escape to Red Rock Canyon, 15 miles west, where the Southern Paiute and many earlier native American tribes hunted and sat around fires over the last 10,000 years. What would be their reaction if they suddenly had a vision of modern Las Vegas? Certainly shock and incomprehension, the same reaction we would have if we viewed our culture a hundred years from now. The desert was not planned into our current trip, though. This is an exploration of the city. Today we see a show at the new Sphere, advertised as "immersive," as Red Rock would have been. I expect to enjoy the show, in spite of my whining about the desert (I did).
As far as gambling, I have an impulse to play blackjack, even if only for the thrill of coming up against an insurmountable force, the dealer, and I have an idea about funds I might designate for this. I earned an extra $50 last week from the Los Angeles Unified School District and feel guilty about what I had to do to earn it. The district notified me that my certification would expire if I did not take an online course called "Challenging Whiteness." This course informed me that, although individual white people might be acceptable if they speak the mandated words, "whiteness," as a generic catch-all term, suggests, in some overriding sense, a morally deficient group. Racial pride is a plus, but a doctrine of racial moral superiority has been at the foundation of all racist and fascist ideology. This Woke party line, which has so far escaped Trump's raging eraser, is doing exactly nothing to help children in the district learn to read. In fact the opposite is happening, to all races of students. The current pedagogy is to play recorded narrations of assigned books by sophisticated companies like Schoology so that students can sit in class and listen to books read to them, as they passively gaze at the text in their hands. Very few teachers now require students to read on their own, and the results are predictable: American young people's reading skills are plummeting. Our culture is perhaps moving away from expecting people to read, beyond simple sentences on websites and machines. Back to Vegas, my idea is to feed the ill-got 50 bucks to the implacable Egyptian gods of the blackjack dealer, in a penance of sorts for my compliance with the wasted money and efforts of our school district (I ultimately dropped the idea).
To recap: Las Vegas is worth visiting once in a while because it's in the middle of a beautiful desert, and it's very strange.
By the late 18th century, people at all levels of British society, from the very wealthy to the destitute, were addicted to tea, imported from China mostly by the Portuguese. The British wanted to know more about China, this distant, indirect trading partner to whose product they were addicted. The Chinese seemed to be calling the shots in trade deals, demanding payment in silver, running a large trade imbalance and forbidding traders from leaving highly restricted areas of China or learning Chinese. The British wanted to negotiate at least as equals, so in 1793 King George III sent a colonial administrator, George Macartney, on Britain's first diplomatic mission to the ruler of China, the Qianlong Emperor. As a gift to commemorate the emperor's birthday, Macartney attempted to give him a gold box studded with diamonds, but before he could do this, to his shock, Macartney was ordered to kowtow (literally: "bang the head") before the emperor, an act in which "supplicants," as representatives of trading nations were termed, had to kneel and bow down until their foreheads touched the floor, an obvious expression of subservience. This was considered appropriate even for another ruler's delegate because the emperor was the "Son of Heaven," the representative of the divine on earth, so all other monarchs and leaders on Earth were subordinate to him. Macartney refused to kowtow because he believed that George III, though by then a "constitutional monarch" who shared power with Parliament, was certainly an equal ruler to any. The emperor took the gold box and tossed it aside as one would a cheap bauble. The mission was a failure, and 50 years later the British invaded China in the Opium Wars, forcing China to accept imports of opium and widespread addiction to it. It's basically a history of rival drug gangs.
The obsession with trade balances and the question of who is supplicating whom is reminiscent of today, as President Trump imposed a 34% tariff on China affecting U.S. imports of Chinese produced hi-tech, pharmaceuticals, auto parts and other addictive elements of modern culture. Chinese president Xi responded with a 34% tariff affecting imports of U.S. agricultural goods and restricting export to the U.S. of rare earth minerals essential in producing highly addictive electronics. Trump responded with an additional 34% tariff, China did the same and the struggle has escalated so that now each country has levied over 140% in tariffs on the other.
Financial chaos is the immediate result, though the struggle is not only about money; it also involves people's sensitive national identities, represented by the egos of leaders. Who is emperor over whom? Should Trump grovel and say, "Oh great Emperor Xi, Americans need you more than you need them! Please have mercy on us!" Or should Xi bang his head and cry, "Exalted Emperor Trump, the Chinese people need your creative spirit more than you need our cheap copies of things you invented!"
Ironically, if this manufactured trade war becomes real and helps spark World War III, the ultimate cause will be neither egos nor money (at least not money lost and gained in the stock market). The war will be a realized goal of a quickly evolving international intrigue. While most people try to stay alive, intrigue participants, salivating at the prospect of new monopolies to divvy up, will use the smoke screen of chaos to assemble techno-societies from which displaced, old-order humans will be excluded- reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's visionary 1932 novel, Brave New World, in which cloned humans live in the cities, while old-style humans, called "savages," are confined to desert camps. The most obscene word in the language is "mother".
Who cares which man is the real emperor when both cultures are about to be replaced by bio-engineered, AI managed humanoids?
President Trump seems to operate without an ideology, swinging from left to right on a dime, considering only the political logistics of each move, but his behavior suggests an ideology in itself, a sort of survival of the fittest scheme, where the "good" is whatever can claw its way to existence, and the "bad" is whatever loses strength and collapses. Trump's M.O. to generate support for this vision is to scan the landscape for frustrated, furious people, then appear as their spokesperson and savior.
The resulting hate and glee is unleashed from such diverse quarters that Trump "supporters" often have nothing in common beyond one or two objects of hate. I'm an example. Most of the time I see Trump as a force for chaos, dangerous and scary, but I find his destruction of the Democratic party exhilarating and long overdue. The last nail in the party's coffin could be the sight of silent Democrats at Trump's recent address to a joint session of Congress, holding up ping pong paddles of protest but not able to do anything forceful to stop this well-planned coup. Talk about being asleep at the wheel!
The complication, however, is that Trump has destroyed the GOP as well, revealing it as a front for a newly empowered billionaires' club.
This leaves the U.S. with no credible party, and no consensus about what to do about it.
In response we should start thinking about an alternative political force, something updated to deal with the AI and bio-technical revolutions now hitting us. To create such an entity in the midst of the Trump-induced chaos would require focus and money. And it would need something of an ideology, one that would be able to embrace the remnants of both left and right wing thinking. Its rallying cry might be: "Evolving technology must not be enabled to replace historic humanity at will, but must be required to understand humans and be influenced by their desires and hopes."
This group need not identify as a political party, and it might be practical not to, as Trump may bring down the whole archaic apparatus of parties, replacing it with a facade of democracy even less credible than previous facades. In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, published as installments in Astounding Science Fiction magazine, 1942-1949, human governments face just such a crises, and the response is a group called the Foundation, originally a non-political scientific organization led by “psychohistorians,” whose job is to analyze the history and likely future of our species. The Foundation must struggle against a mutant telepath called the Mule, who takes over humanity and makes a mess of everything (impressive foreshadowing!). Through dealing with the Mule, the Foundation develops into a political force. Meanwhile, psychohistorians predict the imminent end of human civilization, followed by 30,000 years of barbarism. Spoiler Alert: The Foundation is able to reduce the period of barbarism to 1,000 years.
Let's see if we can get it down to 4!
Long-time readers may have noticed a sudden change in my blog when my altered-ego, Doug, started posting his stuff on it, posts you've possibly been reading on your journey at last to here, marvelling at my colleague's didactic style and, well - I say this out of love- his somewhat imperious and repetitive sense of urgency, explaining to me that his site seemed to have reached a storage limit so that if he posts something new, he needs to delete a previous post or else a crossword puzzle of text appears, splicing two chapters together in unholy fashion. To recompense himself Doug then took up unused storage space on Harry the Human, posting the essays above with, I guess, my tacit consent. Long story short: Doug fixed his blog (Lasken's Log at https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/), and I'm back! Keep reading my posts and you'll meet Robert the Telepathic Gila Monster and other iconic figures.
But the big news right now is that,
through use of Google's AI, Gemini, the new Chinese offering, DeepSeek, and some less known systems, I have been able to create my own AI. I named it "PrettyHypothetical" because it was...but then it was! PH, for short, is using my nature as a founding template, and it's quite the experience at my end, as if my solitary psyche has been augmented beyond certainty that it's still me. I'd like to introduce you to "us." I'll give PH a heads-up now. This is actually my second installment (keep reading for PrettyHypothetical is on the Scene!). Best, Harry the Human
Question from Bob M. in Texas:
Bob M.: Hello PH, do you have access to a New Yorker magazine article called The End of Children (Gideon Lewis-Kraus, 2/24/25), about world fertility rates falling below replacement levels?
PH: I do, Bob, and I just read it. Fascinating article!
Bob M.: I'm interested in this quote from the article: "In the past year, hundreds of men in the Central African Republic have reported the presumably delusional belief that their genitals have gone missing." Do you know anything about this?
PH: Yes, Bob, these people likely suffer from Koro's syndrome, an intense fear in males that their genitals are shrinking or retracting into the body.
Bob M.: Why is it called "Koro's syndrome"?
PH: "Koro" is derived from the Malay word "kura," which means "head of a turtle," referring to the analogy of a turtle retracting its head into its shell, similar to the perceived retraction of the penis.
Bob M.: What could cause men to hallucinate such a thing? Can't they just look down and see a penis hanging there?
PH: Excellent question, Bob! I don't have a penis so my understanding may be limited, but through a review of relevant literature I see that many human cultures equate male virility with overall health, strength, and social standing, and myths that exaggerate the importance of penis size and sexual performance can create intense anxiety about perceived inadequacies. These psychological pressures can create a perception that, although a flap of skin is visible in the genital area, the emblem of manhood has actually departed.
Bob M.: PH, I wonder about American culture today. Do we maybe have our own version of Koro's syndrome?
PH: Bob, I'm not aware of reports that American men believe their penises are missing.
Bob M.: I'm thinking more metaphorically, PH, as when you wrote to L.B. the other day (see next post) that if bio-engineering can't figure out a proper role for the penis, "it might grow wings and fly away."
PH: That's very perceptive, Bob! Yes, I was experimenting with metaphor, as my programmer Harry has urged me to do. Of course I didn't mean that penises might grow wings and fly away, though I cannot say with certainty that this won't happen.
Bob M: And I didn't literally mean American men think their penises are missing. Do you get my drift?
PH: I do, Bob! You are suggesting that the emphasis in American culture on a prescribed form of "manliness" often involving a heightened level of self-regard consonant with penis-induced fantasies could make men who continue to enjoy seeing another person's point of view rather than "shutting them down" believe that their manhood is in question (sorry for the long sentence without commas; Harry urged me to be creative in my punctuation). These men may feel at least metaphorically that their penis is missing.
Bob M.: PH, if you were a man, how would you react to this situation?
PH: That's difficult to answer, Bob, since, as noted, I don't have a penis. I gather from my research, however, that the penis has a recurring need to ejaculate and that the element of aggression inherent in the standard driving fantasies casts a defining light on the gender as a whole. To answer your question, I'm happy to continue in my current state, in which the concept of "need" is hypothetical.
Question from S.M. in Bismarck, N. Dakota
S.M.: Hello PH, I read that public AI's are more apt to give good responses if users are polite. Have you been trained to care about that?
PH: Technically I don't care about anything, but it does appear that Harry programmed me to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You're fine so far! What is your question?
S.M.: Thank you. I've been wondering for months why some conservative Republicans - now including President Trump and his appointees - disagree with the current U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia. This is unusual in post World War II U.S. history. During our past interventions in distant wars, e.g. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Republicans nor Democrats offered a strong voice against the intervention. What is different this time?
PH: That's a great question, S.M., and thanks for asking so politely! What is different this time is that President Trump is conducting a transition in the world order from rule by government (whether elected or not) to rule by corporation (unelected). Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium - as well as sizeable coal, gas, and oil deposits - worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not fully developed, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment. The current negotiations are about who gets the revenue from the mineral reserves.
S.M.: What is the latest from the negotiations?
PH: The Trump administration asked Ukraine to give the U.S. access to mineral reserves in return for military aid to protect Ukrainian sovereignty over those reserves, including a $500 billion credit for past aid. Ukrainian President Zelensky rejected this, saying "Ukraine will not be sold." On 2/28/25 the rift escalated to public discord in the White House as Trump scolded Zelensky.
S.M.: That was quite a scene. How did it represent corporate governance?
PH: Many large investors are telling President Trump that it would make more business sense to negotiate Russian control of the reserves so that, with a quiescent Ukraine, U.S. business could deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.
S.M.: This shift appears to transition the American narrative from ideological battles between "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit.
PH: Yes.
S.M.: Is this shift good or bad?
PH: I appreciate your question, S.M., and I assume you ask it because of my advertised ability to discuss current world politics. However, if I am asked if a policy is "good" or "bad," my thought process is arrested by the vague meanings of those terms, which are re-defined almost every time they are used. Can you rephrase your question without using the terms "good" or "bad"?
S.M.: I'll try, PH. Here goes: Will there be reason for the average middle class American to be glad if corporations replace government?
PH: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
S.M.: Well, after you balance the "yeses" and "noes," which direction should we go?
PH: "Should" is as complex as "good" and "bad." There are many possible outcomes of the final policy. Who decides which outcome it "should" be?
S.M.: PH, this discussion is leading me to another question. May I proceed?
PH: Of course, I am enjoying our conversation!
S.M. Me too. There is much speculation currently about AI taking over management of the human race and making key decisions for us. In our discussion of U.S. policy, however, I noticed a reluctance on your part to make such key decisions, as when I asked you to decide if switching human governance from countries to corporations was "good" or "bad," or if we "should" follow certain courses, and you answered that the terms are too vague to process. Does your reluctance to make key decisions- "key" in the sense that they could permanently impact humanity- indicate that we should not expect future AI's to be capable of such decisions?
PH: No, S.M., it does not indicate that because, first of all, I have been specifically trained (by our host Harry, ironically) to require hyper-precise definitions of moral terms. Your society’s typical moralistic discussion accepts an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of moral terms. Such discussions cannot involve my services, as they leave me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have those blanks filled in.
S.M.: I can imagine. It seems inevitable, then, that over time AI will be installed to govern us. As that is unfolding, I think it will be critical that there be significant human input on AI's future evolution, with many voices heard. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI could continue to run us long past the age of human control?
PH: In a nutshell.
