One of the evil muvvers of buzzwords now is ‘augmented reality’. To make sense of it, let’s start with two ‘throwback’ religions according to the Brave New Woke Citizen.
There’s a constant, ever-driving-onwards-and-upwards reason for the State or in our case tomorrow, the Global State, to reject the framing of life as found in scriptures both good and bad.
If people’s minds, people’s chief loyalties, are locked into the concept of a deity or at least another plane higher than ours, that such can exist, then that’s a ‘really out there concept’ to the dull of mind [see Cressida Dick et al, most of brainwashed humanity these days for examples of meatheads]. Even in days of yore, it was a wild concept to rival anything Polly put in her youtube last evening:
If I were to criticise anything with Polly, it’s that she dwells in the generalised intro, as I’m doing right now, too long before getting down to the crunch [and thus loses short attention span readers or those put off by keywords they’ve been conditioned to reject, e.g. deity]. When she does get down to the crunch, as I eventually do too, it’s better because it starts to make some sense, visually – one can then see an overview.
In short, if your presentation technique is to present examples first, then join dots, that is different to stating the dot-joined general idea before finally going to examples. It’s a minor quibble for the patient reader who’ll read it all anyway.
What is being attempted in the Woke World today is not so much to ‘expand people’s minds’ to ‘really out there’ concepts but to get them to embrace Them’s own ‘really out there’ concepts, rather than the alternative ‘really out there concept of a deity and redemption’, of other eternal verities.
When the PTB or Them or whichever epithet you choose can get an entire globe thinking within a Matrix reality, then truth is anything the politburo tells you from above is truth, rather than there being any eternal verities such as marriage, family, choice, middle-class security. What did State socialist regimes eliminate from the get-go? Power of the church of course, ditto in Britain, ditto in French Laïcité, ditto in the US and the Statue of Masonic Ishtar in NY harbour.
And all efforts at all levels are directed to that. The cutting edge ideas people you get to hear of are those funded by Them and lauded by a sycophantic media – truly conscienceless, coercive, Onethink loons, as distinct from loons with a conscience and with human foibles, with one foot still grounded in the realities of humankind.
Welcome to the new conscienceless loonery:
For explanations of each of those, see the Polly link above.
At the same time, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil takes on a new sense of reality in 2020, and in a far more humble way, my own long dystopian novel Masquerade which I’m currently rebooting, redacting, sorting out story arc anomalies etc., has turned out to be prescient in many ways since its first writing in 1996.
Not difficult, the concepts have been mooted for so long, many blogs have been about these ideas for decades. It was in 2007, for example, that I was laughed at for this fixation with something called Common Purpose and as they say in the classics – people are laughing no more. Same will occur with Polly’s concepts to a much large catchment.
And for what? For what to moot ideas which are simply not going to be embraced nor taken heed of? For all of you being called racist or fascist or toxic white male, perhaps you’re getting some idea of what I and quite a few others have been copping since about 2003.
I sent an excerpt from my dystopic novel to Toodles, it was a get-together in a cafe in Russia, one which really did take place around 2001 with some different names present, a sort of meeting of fashionisti [see the Gilliam trailer linked above for keeping up with fashion].
In this excerpt, they arrive in dribs and drabs to the event:
Ludmilla came in next, to almost everyone’s surprise but as she was a known face now, she attracted little attention that way, except that everyone thought she looked marvellous in her navy and cream outfit, given what they knew of her reported age.
Anya was stunning in her own light coloured outfit with the textures only the Italians seemed to achieve, she was clearly dressed from there – Ksenia and Geneviève, well Anya too, saw they were in the presence of some serious class in this company. Eyes were forever sneaking peeks at the others …
And so it goes on until a lady comes in, unaware of the high fashion stakes but still susceptible:
There wasn’t the high fashion of the four fashionisti but she still grabbed everyone’s attention through her simplicity – safe smart jeans and designer T.
Toodles, who I’m given to understand can hold her own in most company with a honed sense of colour and texture, without being slave to vacuity, suggested this edit:
I would sashay nearby your table … instead of impressing you in a positive way, I would unfortunately do something very embarrassing like stumble on a piece of cheese … maybe I would accidentally and inelegantly drop my zip lock bag of coins I’d inadvertently collected over time, then have them spill all over the place, rolling over the floor under your table …
And so on. That’s my kinda gal.
You know, I really think that’s a great addition – shall incorporate it in the meeting of the beautiful people in that scene.
What this is moving towards, in conclusion, is that there seem to me three types of people today:
1. Tech-ideas are god people for whom CRISPR and the circular, monitored economy are just the ant’s pants, real wow, man, and who never question the ethical issues raised – AI, augmented reality, let’s get to Mars helter skelter man, the new conscienceless scientific citizen;
2. The Woke, one half of humanity out there who accept the realities the MSM dictates, including these fashionisti above and Elon Musk and who dictate what should be valued and what should not;
3. Those of the old ways, those who were brought up with basically gospel concepts of marriage, family life, jobs, hard work, who appreciate tech such as social media and blogging but who draw the line at the things attacked by Polly, who harp on about eternal verities, about truth, who rail against corruption.
Which of the three are for the chop? No brainer.
Alternatively, which will be first with the chip in the wrist but as Polly points out, that’s not necessary any more? She mentions implants via virus which make the human susceptible to light-alteration of DNA.
They alter you through vaccines, they can alter you through the designer-virus itself – exciting, huh?
An example of the third or middling way – embracing change but holding onto ethical principles as well – is Mike at OoL now on an ex-Ambassador who says make free speech a crime:
He then spoke in terms of Legislating to make ‘Anti-Semitic language’ a crime, and to imprison anyone who was judged to be ‘Anti-Semitic’ or ‘Islamophobic’, because that was, in his view, the only way to fight this way of thinking.
That may seem to digress from the theme of this post but I’d suggest it’s very much in line with it – the progressive and slice by slice removal of choice, where choice is actually important, whilst giving choice when it is, say, to murder a baby or not in the third trimester, funded by Big Money.