“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”

― Frank Herbert, Dune

My favorite genre in literature and film has always been Science Fiction. While I also enjoy westerns and other fictional works, the biggest attraction to Science Fiction is the “What if?” factor of humanity with advanced technology. The speculative aspect of how we would use technology, especially at levels our ancestors in the not too distant past would regard as magic was intriguing and sometimes even frightening in a way that put most horror fiction to shame.

Subscribe now

Share ArthurinCali’s Thoughts

Share

Between stacks of OMNI Magazines, Popular Science and a small treasure of VHS tapes in my childhood bedroom, I would get lost in the worlds created by authors such as Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, and many others.1

The theme of cautionary science fiction has been an excellent way to explore the combination of advanced technology and the hubris of Mankind.

Take the science fiction writer Michael Crichton for example. His books have been the basis for many Sci-Fi films with the most famous being Jurassic Park, a fantastical, yet cautionary tale of scientists being able to extract dinosaur DNA from amber fossils for cloning purposes. The book and movie adaptation nicely explain the hypothetical science used to do the cloning process.

Spoiler: it doesn’t turn out to be a good idea to resurrect long extinct creatures back for a modern-day amusement park.2 A quote from one of the characters admonishing the owner of the park still resonants over three decades later.

Where Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong

But in his 1973 film Westworld about life-like robots with Artificial Intelligence (AI) turning murderous in a futuristic amusement park, the idea of science going further than it should resonants around the current conversations surrounding AI.3

AI has popped up in a lot of cinema and novels since around the time Westworld came out. 2001: A Space Odyssey, based on an Arthur C. Clarke novel, was also about rogue AI. Frank Herbert’s Dune book series alluded to an entire war of humanity against AI in the form of a Butlerian Jihad.

For most movie fans, the AI Skynet from The Terminator movie series has taken on greater meaning in the 21st century, especially with news stories regularly coming out describing the latest technology involving AI drones utilized in warfare. Fears of AI taking over were a centerpiece of The Matrix movies.

Positive portrayals of AI in films such as Bicentennial Man or even Chappie are often overlooked in favor of more sensational coverage and discussions of how AI will interact with humanity. Steven Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence tried to put a humanizing touch on a future humanity alongside AI. Ex Machina took a decidedly different route on the possibilities of future AI.

The reality will most likely land somewhere in the middle.

AI As Savior or the Fall of Mankind

The concerns around emergent AI technology have been discussed at length, with some predicting job displacement hitting 20-30% in some industries, the constant technological intrusions into society, and a general unease with the rapidity of the proposed AI roll-outs. Estimates vary on the total number of AI data centers in the US by 2030, but a conservative number puts them at around 5,000 centers dedicated to AI functions by the end of this decade.

Some online platforms like YouTube, have raised fear-mongering to an art level on the approaching “AI Apocalypse.”

Immanentize the (AI) Eschaton

There are true believers who see AI technology as humanity’s next step in evolution, much in the way Sci-Fi author Arthur C. Clarke expressed when he said:

“It’s perfectly obvious that we are in a sense creating our own successors. I think that the most intelligent inhabitants of that future world won’t be men or monkeys, they’ll be machines.”

This article “AI May End the Myth of Human Uniqueness” makes this argument in a similar way, describing AI as if it will simply be another complimentary species of human. Maybe even better than humanity.

John MacCormick is a professor at Dickinson College and the author of “Thinking AI: How Artificial Intelligence Emulates Human Understanding.”4

“Can computer programs emulate the entire range of human thought, including creativity and intuition? There are good reasons to believe the answer is yes, especially given the recent progress in artificial intelligence. If so, the potential is enormous: AI that emulates human insight could accelerate discovery, expand access to knowledge and amplify human capability across many domains. But the rise will probably have a psychological impact too. Superhuman AI capabilities could threaten the very sense of what it means to be human.”

“Why believe computers can achieve human-level creativity and insight? The empirical evidence from AI systems gets stronger month by month, ranging from PhD-level performance in physics and chemistry to increasingly convincing musical and visual compositions. Computer scientists have known since the 1950s that computer programs can, in principle, emulate any aspect of human thought. This is because the digital calculations inside a computer can emulate the inputs and outputs of the neurons in a human brain. Given this, “the problem is mainly one of programming,” as Alan Turing said in 1950.” [Bold added for emphasis]

The sweeping assertion that computers can “emulate any aspect of human thought” is an exercise in scientific hubris almost beyond description.

“First, life itself was once thought to have a unique quality that distinguishes it from inanimate matter. This theory, known as vitalism, died out in the early 20th century and today has no scientific credibility: Modern biochemistry has revealed that all life can be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.

Second, humans were once thought to be qualitatively distinct from nonhuman animals. But since the 19th century, Darwinism has gradually eroded that view. Today, the only credible scientific viewpoint is that humans are related to all other species via a vast series of small mutations from a common ancestor.” [Bold added for emphasis]

The “we are no different from the animals” viewpoint persists.

With the rise of intuitive and creative AI systems, humans must relinquish another supposedly special attribute: the notion that our minds are qualitatively different from other information-processing systems.

Calling the human mind simply a computer made of flesh has been an insidious mantra for almost a century. Like comparing a propeller-driven boat to swimming.

The uniqueness of the human mind is an old idea. René Descartes, for example, thought that nonhuman animals were purely mechanistic automatons, whereas humans were animated by a distinct substance that enabled reasoning. Computer scientists aren’t the only ones to be suspicious of Descartes’ claim: Many philosophers, neuroscientists and psychologists believe that the human mind emerges from physical processes, and that these processes can be emulated by computer programs. Add in the recent evidence from AI systems, and it seems the time is ripe for humans to surrender another claim to uniqueness. The human mind is no longer the only system capable of reasoning, insight or creativity.

Dissolving the idea that human and human interactions are no different than, say, wolves or sharks, is a dangerous path to go down; excusing a lot of atrocities in the name of science.

Some elements of our society continue to oppose Darwinism. Most likely, some will also oppose the reality that every human thought could be produced by a computer program… Society is best served by accepting this new reality and looking for ways to flourish within it.[Bold added for emphasis]

Case closed then, right? We should simply agree with this reality being presented and move on? The finality of demanding acceptance for a mechanical simulacrum of humanness is insulting.

We don’t know yet if it’s a good idea for AI programs to be our friends or companions, but they can certainly help solve our problems. Perhaps AI programs can also help to deepen our interactions with other humans, rendering them more meaningful. Our best approach is to accept AI for what it is — and celebrate the human mind as one amazing corner in a universe of computation. [Bold added for emphasis]

Yet this isn’t accepting AI for what it is, it’s wishcasting for humanity’s replacement.

For all the wonder talk about AI capabilities, proven and yet to be, I bristle at the idea that it will ever create or be accepted at a human level. Can it “produce” results and conjure up a simulacrum of humanness? Sure. But all of these announcements and proclamations that AI is the next evolution for the human species is a special kind of hubris.

An LLM model, no matter how advanced it becomes, will never walk by a field of apple trees and be reminded by the smell of a long ago road trip through the New England countryside. Nor can it hear a piano sonata and be transported back in time to a memory from childhood.

“Oh, but look how efficient it is!”

What is lost in the conversations around AI is that the very things that make up humanity; its imperfections, irrational ways, etc. – are exactly what makes us unique as human beings.

This trend of technological machine god worship is troubling as more and more people try to summon an egregore.

“A real tear will never be shed by Artificial Intelligence.”

-

I joined on Pirate Radio to discuss the recent uproar over $20 “BurritoGate” that started simply by a young TPUSA audience member remarking that a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.

- Arthur

Subscribe now

Share

Share ArthurinCali’s Thoughts

Enjoy.

- Arthur

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Werner Herzog’s 2005 Grizzly Man is no different. What seems at first simply a cautionary tale of respecting nature evolves into something much more. This isn’t to say that Mr. Herzog is not a phenomenal documentarian. The film holds up very well 20 years after release. This is no surprise for a Herzog production.

He has been at the top of his game for quite some time, with a unique talent for presenting the subject of his films in a multi-faceted style, making the viewer come away after watching with a lot to think about.

I first watched Grizzly Man in 2006 and honestly, came away thinking Tim’s death was merely the eventual consequence of being around dangerous wildlife for just a bit too long. Yet, in the following years a new perspective began to emerge that I explain after this screening.

I joined on a Twitter/X livestream1 to discuss the motivations and deeper themes of the tragic story of Timothy Treadwell. A man whose fascination and love for nature and one of her most fearsome creations, the Grizzly Bear, led to his demise. Enjoy.

-Arthur

Links:

https://www.youtube.com/@wandermrpanda

“Americans are always the villain in the story of 20^th century immigration to America.”

I joined on Pirate Radio for a conversation about 20^th century American immigration policies and their effects. We discuss the conditions around the passing of the 1924 Immigration Act and how the retelling of the history prior to its passing by Progressives distort the real need for immigration restrictions at the time.

Subscribe now

We also examine the Hart–Celler Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and how these pieces of legislation were the perfect storm for disfunction in the future for American society.

Share

Towards the end of the episode, we have a frank talk about the 1990 H-1B visa program and how damaging this legislation has been to Americans career prospects.

Finally, we talk about what comes next in the 21st century. Not just for America, but for the Western world in general; how identity will become the driving issue.

Enjoy,

Arthur

Youtube

Spotify

The Toxic American Links

Website : thetoxicamerican.com

Twitter : x.com/toxicAmeriCAN

Podcast : open.spotify.com/show/0barnyE9MXSZQ79JGN8ZzZ?si=d3cae37f60714d58

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

You can support my work here: Buy Me a Coffee

Links:

X: @ CTCMemecast

Youtube: https://t.co/Lu47vVKcMT

Website: https://www.theclowntownchronicle.com/

"Your father is the only man that wants you to be better than him"

Steve Harvey, actor and comedian

I sit down with MNBFY YouTube show and discuss lessons learned from losing my Father with an expanded conversation on how challenges in life can shape and hone one’s outlook on the bigger picture.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Links:

Twitter: (at)MNBFYPod

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thismightnotbeforyoupod

As this article notes, some producers were somewhat shocked at the audience’s reaction to news that they were now on the hook for paying the gift tax.

Speaking on the podcast, looking back on the show, producer Lisa Erspamer reflected on the backlash.

“Because the Pontiacs were gifts, they were taxed as ordinary income, and this also meant the gift tax had to be paid by the person receiving the gift.”

The show’s producers, to their credit, paid for the sales tax and registration of the car, but obviously, they couldn’t pay everyone else’s taxes.

“And because we didn’t pay the gift tax, people complained to the press, and that was devastating. We put our whole soul into this moment of television and with real intention to do something good, and so when people had a negative reaction, it literally hurt our feelings.” {Bold added for emphasis}

It “hurt their feelings” not being appreciated for handing over nearly 300 additional tax burdens wrapped up in a nice gift box. The producer still shows a sense of obliviousness over 20 years later to why there was a backlash.

As the “You Get A Car!” GIFs and memes occasionally make an appearance online, a larger lesson in this 2000s pop culture moment on a drawback of instant altruism were mostly an afterthought and highlight a problem that persists today on the larger geopolitical scale of US foreign aid. The “Oprah Car Surprise” repeats itself in an endless loop.

American geographical altruism knows no bounds. Right now all, across the globe there are tens of thousands of little projects going on under the direction of either NGOs, foreign aid funds and many other private institutions doing their part. Whether food aid, habitat building, or the latest Bill Gates vaccine program in India, American tax dollars are hard at work to make the world a better place.

Allegedly.

To be sure, there is probably a group of bright-eyed Mormon kids, brimming with optimism currently putting a roof on a house in Guatemala right now.

Changing lives, amirite?

I’ll admit, there was a time in my youth where I had moments of believing all these efforts to improve conditions in Third World countries was entirely worthwhile and with zero downsides. There was also a time when I still believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Traveling the world allows one to experience the realities behind the constant noise and media depictions of how things actually are in many 3rd world nations.

During deployments in the military, there are opportunities to participate in what they call COMREL projects. (COMREL stands for community relations. The military loves acronyms for everything.) Basically, a group of volunteers would help an impoverished village build or repair some infrastructure, usually a playground or spruce up an orphanage. Medical personnel would go to the village hospital and assist whatever NGO who ran the clinic and the few locals who worked there.

Over time, a system of dependence would form. The term Learned Helplessness was not in my lexicon to be able to describe what I witnessed at the time, but it nicely fits what would occur in these areas of the world that continuously received Western assistance.

Best example was hearing about a playground getting repaired in the Philippines multiple times over numerous deployments. They would essentially let it fall apart and wait until the next US military detachment showed up. It was more than simply adding a new coat of paint or changing the basketball netting. Conditions would get pretty bad in between; jagged edges from playground parts long cut off by villagers for.. something, slides and swings not secured to the ground anymore due to bolts getting removed, etc. Worse was hearing of an orphanage that simply let the roof leak until the G.I. Joe Home Depot showed up to fix it again.

Behind the official glossy photos of smiling little orphans and repaired equipment touted by NGOs and media outlets and gov’t PR, the hidden frustration was in knowing it was only a matter of time before things would fall into disrepair again.

Share

These distant memories of geographical altruism came to mind as I listened to a recent NPR episode on the PEPFAR program, its effectiveness, and the possibility of a complete dismantling of the program by the Trump administration. PEPFAR was announced with great fanfare in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush as a crisis response to combat the ravaging effects of the AIDS virus in Africa.

The NPR guest was Doctor Deborah Birx, former US global AIDS coordinator for the PEPFAR initiative from 2014 to 2021. Her experience with the AIDS epidemic in Africa goes back to the 1980s and I expected to hear concrete results and arguments as to why this 20+ year “temporary crisis program” needed to remain funded.

That was not what happened.

Anyone familiar with the NPR interview format can surmise how this sit down went with a supposed leading expert in her field and of the PEPFAR initiative. It was the usual softball-style interview with plenty of flowery language and word salad moments where Dr. Birx waxed poetically about how proud she was that the program was started, and about how 26 million Africans were dying naturally instead of from a deadly and preventable sexually transmitted disease.

Obviously, those 26 million folks are grateful to be alive today and the treatment and prevention education wasn’t for nothing, but what, exactly, has PEPFAR accomplished?

Pretty much nothing.

Since the announcement of the PEPFAR initiative in 2003, over $120 billion dollars has been spent to treat and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. The program was designed from the beginning as a continual external support program in the efforts to eradicate HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Key word being external.

What does this mean?

This means that over 20 years and $120 billion American taxpayer dollars later, no pharmaceutical factories were built in Africa to produce HIV testing kits or treatment drugs.1

It means no dedicated medical centers or facilities were erected in support of the PEPFAR mission statement that include goals of “sustainability of the HIV response,” “country ownership,” and gradual transition to domestic financing and management.

Nor has there been a dedicated medical school pipeline to train native Africans to treat their own people.

Essentially, without ongoing funding the PEPFAR initiative falls like a house of cards. It was never meant to “enable” countries in Africa to eventually get on their own feet managing the AIDS epidemic with their own doctors, factories and facilities. It was more of a hand-out than anything that would be considered a helping hand. Instead of teaching them to fish, we simply handed out fish platters to the tune of $120 billion dollars. PEPFAR is another “Van Wilder-style” foreign aid program that will never accomplish its own stated goals and continue to bleed tuition taxes to keep people like Dr. Birx and other NGOs in the proverbial global college.

Does this mean there should be no efforts to improve the lives of those in the 3rd world? That the West has no role to play?

No, it doesn’t.

But just as the playground falling into a condition of jagged metal and rust, only to require constant upkeep from a benevolent source, doing things because it makes one feel good will not solve complex geopolitical problems simply by throwing money at it. In fact, it only makes things worse.

R/

Arthur

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If you enjoyed this essay or other pieces of my work, you can show your support by Buying Me A Coffee.

Hospitals have always held a paradox to me as every emotion is expressed inside one building. Joy, anger, sadness, resentment, hope, and the realities of human existence all under one roof. New life entering the world on one floor while someone else is having the worst day of their life in an ER.

Dad sleeps more and more these days. I’m lucky to get 5-10 minutes of conversation at a time. The topics range from wanting a new cell phone plan, then turning to the decision of what type of casket he prefers.

The hallucinations are an interesting development. He would point out to me when he saw people standing in the corner of the room. I would ask if they look familiar to him, maybe long dead relatives I only knew from old black and white photographs. But no, they are strangers to him and wouldn’t tell us their names. Sometimes he thinks he’s in a hotel. Or on a train. At least these visuals aren’t scary images.

Small favors.

To hospital staff, they only see another almost 90 year old man wasting away in his bed. A countless process repeated over and over in the medical profession. Nurses are kind and helpful, with eyes full of sympathy when they speak to me, while the doctors discuss the futility of treatments.

They don’t see a life that started in the shadow of the Great Depression in West Texas. A man who was drafted and served his nation. Frail now, but someone who helped provide the nation’s energy needs in the fiercely cold and barren Alaska oil industry. Staff nod politely when, during clearer phases in his memory, he tells them stories of flying his plane across the Alaskan bush. A full life lived, now reduced to waiting to shuffle onto what lies beyond.

I recently came across this quote on how one’s Father wants their Son to achieve more than he did. Obviously, this isn’t a truism in all family dynamics, but it’s how a good relationship should be. My Father was not perfect and had a number of personality traits that I have worked hard not to exhibit. He could be overly critical with words and growing up I didn’t always know where I stood with him. Yet he also provided a safe home and worked hard to give us everything we needed.

It took these last few years with him for me to understand my Father’s rough demeanor and personality. That in his own imperfect way, he wanted me to achieve the most out of this life, and to do better than he did, whether in my professional career or personally. Going through his wallet to find his ID and seeing my boot camp picture or sitting in his office looking at the numerous old photos of us doing family stuff through the years showed me how sentimental he actually was.

You don’t fully feel like an adult until you’re sitting at a funeral home going over a parents’ burial wishes. It’s one thing to believe you understand your own mortality, yet quite another to read what a loved one had to contemplate and put to paper for their own, knowing that you too will be doing this one day. Casket model, burial service song selection, how the obituary will be worded, all of it laid bare on paper.

We are almost done with this journey.

Hospice care had to be arranged. Once he stopped eating and couldn’t speak clearly or walk, it was the inevitable choice.

There were funny moments as well.

Dad displayed glimpses of his sense of humor at times. During one confused state he requested I give him $20 for a pair of boots. I told him a good pair would probably cost 10X that. “Oh well. Guess I’ll just go barefoot,” he replied before falling back asleep. That was the last thing he said that I could understand.

Most of his affairs were set up for when this time came, but not everything. I found myself playing financial forensic files to ensure that I stopped needless payments and services. Things like streaming channels he was paying for, even though I had added him to the family accounts several years ago. Charity donations and medical prescriptions to be discontinued. Most were simple to cancel with a keystroke or quick phone call.

Except for one company.

I discovered he had a Life Alert subscription, one that when I cancelled had the audacity to call afterwards twice in attempts to get him to re-subscribe. This was even after emailing a hospice memo to them declaring his condition terminal. The first call was right after he passed away and the other while I was driving to the cemetery for his burial service, displaying just how ghoulish the Life Alert company could be.

The service was a simple one at what I consider our family cemetery. It isn’t ours personally, but walking along the long row of loved ones in the ground makes it feel like it is. The honor guard giving me the flag really drove home the reality of losing Dad.

But as I sit in this empty house surrounded by a thousand memories of him, I know that I will continue this life journey, only now without the one man who always wanted me to be better than him.

Links below.

R/

Arthur

Share

Links:

Substack:

Website: https://www.theclowntownchronicle.com/

Share

We cover:

• Mixed messaging from the Administration and war in the age of social media

• Theories on the purpose for military action now

• Impact on domestic issues and the MAGA agenda

• Thoughts on what hasn’t happened that many geopolitical “experts” predicted for decades would occur if hostilities were initiated

• The Trillion($$$) Dollar Question: “What Happens Next?”

Subscribe now

Enjoy

- Arthur

Links:

Youtube - The Toxic American

Website - The Toxic American

Podcast - The Toxic American

The constant headlines make clear that this rhetorical flourish in calling everything a Cruelty is the strategy moving forward.

ICE Is Treating Trans Immigrants With A New Level Of Cruelty

Despite Trump’s cruelty, the Christmas spirit lives on

Colorado Republicans vote for Trump’s signature policy bill, Democrats cite its ‘cruelty’

The Cruelty and Theatre of the Trump Press Conference

Governor Newsom sues Trump administration for cruel cuts to homeless housing funding that will hurt families

Trump sows ‘chaotic cruelty’ while Canadian PM Carney reminds the world it doesn’t have to play along

ICE is incognito, but there’s no masking the Trump regime’s cruelty

The “Chaos and Cruelty” of Trump’s Worksite Immigration Raids

The Cruelty of Trump’s Crackdown on Afghan Refugees

Not ‘filthy, dirty, disgusting.’ Trump’s cruelty to Haitians despicable

Share

Something important to remember

A reminder to those who have forgotten, but these people are not on your side and never will be. A party that cheers on the dismantlement of the nation through mass immigration, transgender surgeries for children and releasing violent felons who go on to murder Americans will never see things the way you do. This goes for all the institutions the Left has mostly controlled for decades including mainstream media and academia.

Let me repeat that for normies sitting in the back: Corporate media and the Left DO NOT CARE about your values, traditions, or culture.

Too many appear to still be under the impression that if the Left are shown a few more graphs and statistics that they will see the error of their ways and start agreeing with viewpoints and solutions presented by the Right. A moment of them looking at each other and saying, “Hey guys, maybe they’re correct” is not happening and is magical thinking at its best. All they know is to double and triple down on their original convictions.

At present, the most highlighted issue in Leftist media is outrage at immigration enforcement and upholding the rule of law as it is written. Tomorrow it will be about the environment or a random trade policy. The policy targeted doesn’t matter. Anything Right-coded is the total embodiment of evil in their eyes.

Subscribe now

The Rules Aren’t the Same

Keep in mind this is not some sacred principle the Left holds itself to. You won’t see self-admonishments and reflections on the damages a Progressive administration wrought on America. NAFTA was never described as a “Cruel” economic policy that would hollow out American towns and communities throughout what is now described as the Rust-Belt. Coal miners and other energy workers impacted from Biden climate change directives were flippantly told, “Learn to Code”, and that they were part of an obsolete industry. More recently during the Covid-era, loved ones dying in hospitals were not even allowed visits from family visitors, even if they themselves had Covid. Or the 1000s of Americans that have lost their lives to illegal immigration through crimes committed against them. Recall The Laken Riley Act, a token piece of legislation that required the detainment of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, was only supported by 22% of Democrats.

A collective shrug or outright silence from the Left is all Americans affected by migrant crime receive.

Understand Political Reality

This is not to say that the Progressive Left owes an apology to the millions of Americans affected by their policies, nor is this to point out the neverending hypocrisies in the style of “Democrats are the real [insert whatever bad thing].”

One: they’re not going to apologize for their tactics and strategy to achieve ideological goals.

Two: Asking or seeking contrition or acceptance from the opposing side is all but admitting defeat to Progressive ideology. By doing this, you are trying to live by their moral framework. Which is exactly what they want.

Those professing to be on the Right need to understand what the rules of real politics are. Simply thinking that winning an election or two would make the Left surrender to the ideas of the Right is folly.

Look at the events that have occurred, for example.

Charlie Kirk assassinated? That’s simply another piece off the political game board to the Left. One less conservative voice for them to contend with. Attempts on Trump’s life? “Too bad they missed” is the Left’s response along with a few mealy-mouthed platitudes from Democrat politicians about the need to turn down the rhetoric.

The new Attorney General of Virginia Jay Jones can appear with Barack Hussein Obama at a campaign rally after revelations that he wished death upon his opponents’ children, and Progressives won’t bat an eye. Instead, they will show up faithfully to vote for him. Importing millions to increase political power? Progressives call that strategy.

The political kabuki theater of Liberal outrage for everything the Right does is moral blackmail dressed up as false virtue. More need to realize this and disregard it.

Share ArthurinCali’s Thoughts

Leave a comment

If you enjoyed this article, you can now Buy Me a Coffee.

Seldom mentioned is how this paradigm shift affected celebrity tabloid magazines. Publications such as The National Enquirer1, US Weekly, and Stars were a primary source for gossip and rumors on Hollywood and political figures on supermarket magazine racks. While maintaining a somewhat sleazy reputation in journalism circles, exclusive Hollywood star interviews and the latest scandals on their covers were a prequel to the clickbait headlines we are bombarded with online today.

As more news stories begin to emulate this formula, it becomes harder to determine what is actually worthwhile and what is simply tabloid filler masquerading as competent political media. This 2000 word salad TMZ-style article from Politico, “Kamala in La La Land” is a perfect example of glam media pretending to be real political journalism. Even the graphic used conveys a tabloid style.

The article is bizarre in that it reads more like the day-to-day of a fading Hollywood starlet and not someone who had a shot at becoming the leader of the free world. Aside from a few trite mentions of fellow Democratic consultants grumbling (anonymously, of course) about Mrs. Harris not taking a more engaging role in politics, especially after the DNC spent $1.5 Billion on her failed presidential campaign, the article shares more in common with the celebrity tabloid feature, “Stars! They’re just like us!”

From Politico:

“So she spent days at the Hillcrest Country Club, where her husband is a member, and hosted get-togethers with friends at the home where she and Emhoff settled after their 2014 marriage. She did a lot of cooking, at least for a time, organizing weekly Sunday night dinners with her extended family. She made shopping trips to the Brentwood Country Market — a high-end open-air bazaar replete with luxury eyeglass stores, Goop, and $25 ancient-grain bowls — and patronized such a limited rotation of fancy Brentwood restaurants that members of her security detail started to jokingly grumble about the lack of variety, according to someone who heard the complaints.”

Share

While understandable for Mrs. Harris to want a break from politics after 20+ years of being the political prom queen, some perks are too good to pass up.

Even if this endangers the public safety of Angelenos:

“Some of the decisions to stay ensconced in Brentwood, it seems, can be ascribed to concerns over security. When she departed Washington, Harris brought with her a Secret Service detail but lacked the ability to blow through stoplights in a motorcade — a particular complication in Los Angeles for a dignitary unaccustomed to the indignity of sitting in traffic.

On Sept. 1, Trump pulled Harris’ Secret Service detail. State and local officials decided to extend their own protection, with Los Angeles Police Department officers working in conjunction with the California Highway Patrol, a move criticized by the city’s police union.

“Pulling police officers from protecting everyday Angelenos to protect a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes and who can easily afford to pay for her own security, is nuts,” the Los Angeles Police Protective League board of directors told the Los Angeles Times.

While security concerns have contributed to Harris’ reclusive approach to life in Los Angeles, it also seemed to fit her preferences. (A spokesperson for Harris did not reply to requests to comment for this story.) Harris and Emhoff recently purchased an $8 million home in an even more isolated oceanfront neighborhood in Malibu, the New York Post reported last week.”

Californians were offered a slight reprieve when she announced last summer she would not be tossing her hat (heels?) into the next governor’s race. Former Governor Gray Davis provided cover for this decision in the most elitist way possible:

“In late July, Harris announced she would not, in fact, be running for governor. To some California politicians, including current and potential gubernatorial candidates waiting on her decision, it was a surprise — but not to another career public servant who was unceremoniously dispatched to private life in Los Angeles.

“She spent the last four years meeting kings and prime ministers all over the world, I’m sure that’s a pretty heady experience,” said former California Gov. Gray Davis, who was recalled from office in 2003. “I can understand why she didn’t want to run.”

She met with kings and prime ministers, folks. Who among us can blame her for not wanting to be mere governor of California? The tone deafness of explaining this away neglects that during the 2020 Democratic primaries she wasn’t projected to get enough votes to win California as a sitting senator. But, we’ll never know as she dropped out long before the vote.

Subscribe now

The article continues:

“Harris appeared eager to present herself as a notably different figure than the ladder-climbing establishmentarian who had lost two straight presidential races due to what many supporters conceded was a surfeit of both strategic and personal caution. Now she was railing against a “broken” political environment to Stephen Colbert, and in an interview with the New York Times claimed she was embarking on a looser, less scripted “freedom tour.”

When the Democratic National Committee met last month at a downtown Los Angeles hotel, Harris took the opportunity to address party officials — claiming not the mantle of the party’s standard bearer but an angry outsider.

“Both parties have failed to hold the public’s trust,” Harris told party officials. “Government is viewed as fundamentally unable to meet the needs of its people ... People are done with the status quo and they’re ready to break things to force change.”

Politico thoughtfully points out how Mrs. Harris has re-invented herself as the “angry outsider” of standard politics. To somehow imagine a politician whose resume contains former positions as a California state attorney general, senator, and once vice president of the United States doing a rebrand as some maverick outsider is as believable as Bat Boy in the Weekly World News. 2

The article ends with a feel-good moment at a Compton High School graduation that Kamala attended, allegedly because a personal letter from a student was handed to her husband requested her there.

Politico describes it as an afterschool special scene:

“For all the criticism of Harris’ elite bubble, or lack of desire to go beyond her comfort zone, or enter into unpredictable environments, here she was, walking down a high-school football field, hand in hand with a young woman getting ready to head out into the world — only one of them sure exactly what she would do next with their life.

“There’s a way that Black aunties and grandmas talk, where they’re about their business, but they’re also super, super sweet,” Causey said. “She’s like that. And the good part is she agreed to still be part of my life. That won’t be the last time I see her.”

This article is another sign of how theater kid politics has overtaken the American political landscape. Mrs. Harris is even quoted as saying she took the 2024 loss as “a level of pain akin to the death of her mother.”

Tabloids have been replaced with online magazines pretending to be important journalism with this Politico piece as one of many examples.

The usual historical example is, of course, the American Civil war that briefly created two nations within the continental USA. What is interesting is that the separatist tendency is woven into the fabric of America throughout her history, even while the bonds of overall attachment remained. Looking at the makeup of the original 13 colonies that eventually turned into states and one can see the tangible marks of identity that created them. Books such as “American Nations” and “Albion’s Seed” nicely lay out the regional cultures and how they came about.

Share

Aside from the American Civil War, a common theme for most ideas of reorganizing state lines have maintained the idea of still being part of a united country overall. America is, and has been self-sorting for a long time based on culture and ways of life. From where people decide to live, to the laws and policies enacted at the local level. In the modern era, this effort to mini-balkanize is alive and well when you look at examples of Oregon counties trying to join Idaho, or the over 200 proposals that have been put forth to divvy up California since 1850. And it must be mentioned the almost fierce pride many Texans have when they declare the state could be its own nation.

The 21^st century has brought the prospect of dissolving national ties and setting off on new paths and (separate) national destinies closer to a reality. Too many in the Right-wing sphere (and the Left as well) seem to relish the thought of a national schism, thinking this will be the “good” ending to the miasma that haunts the national psyche. This outcome gets described as the eventual result and treated like a silver-bullet solution the problems of 21^st century America divided by competing ideological visions, diversity, and corrupted beyond repair.

But what would the division actually look like? Questions of what happens after a national split regarding resources, economics, and the stark reality of just how fragile modern civilization is, are mostly papered over by the accelerationists’. The interdependency of systems becomes an afterthought.

The “Burn it all down” war cry may get clicks and clout online, but tracing the logical outcomes of a break-up leads to a number of disturbing results. A cataclysmic splitting of the nation into 2-3, or even more semi-autonomous nation-states is not the silver-bullet solution many think it would be.

Leave a comment

It’s much easier for those who yearn for a breakup of the USA to skip the inconvenient details that get in the way to their idea of BasedWorld™️ or those with opposite versions of an imagined socialist utopia.

I discuss the question of a national divorce and more with The Wandering Panda in the link below. Leave a comment and tell me your predictions on the possibility and consequences of a fractured America.

I join Podcast to discuss the narratives surrounding the continent of Africa in Post-WWII and throughout the Cold War era. We dive into the well-worn version that is presented of plucky African nations crawling out from colonialism, yearning for the warmth of Liberal Democracy™️ and a slice of Uncle Sam’s Apple Pie.

Yeah, we mostly tear apart that fairytale.

A better recollection of the struggle amongst the superpowers on the continent (USA, USSR, China) is a tale of opportunism, tragedy, and yes, a lot of dark humor amongst the chaos.

Enjoy, and make sure to check out the links below to The Toxic American

- Arthur

Subscribe now

Share

Links:

X/Twitter - The Toxic AmeriCAN

Website - Toxic American

YouTube - The Toxic American

Rumble - The Toxic American

Share

Some of the highlights covered include:

Conservative Inc. (National Review types, Daily Wire, etc)

- Will continue to offer up empty slogans of “Free Markets and Limited Government” in a vain attempt to steer the narratives of the mainstream GOP donor class.

- Designating targets for certain figures on the Right to go after as an effective strategy to fight off any distractions to their core message as a protection of Conservatism. (i.e. can’t have the average NormieCon voter begin to rethink large parts of our domestic and foreign policy advocated by the establishment.)

- This is in line with a long pattern of putting down any true movements that would threaten their political market share. Any other voices counter to Con Inc. groupthink has been smeared and seen with disdain. (Tea Party is a good example. Important to remember all of these voices proclaiming they are protecting “True Conservatism were and still are Never Trumpers)

- Vance is still the real target. By going after anyone associated with him, they can have their proxy war without having to directly be accused of trying to sabotage 2028 at this time. As we get closer to that election, especially if the midterms go bad, the calls for a GOP Mitt Romney-style candidate will grow louder)

The GOP politicians in the House and Senate

- Most are playing to run out the clock and expect things to return to a normal Uni-party situation around D.C. once Trump 2.0 ends. To be able to be the loyal opposition and beautiful losers to the Progressives. They are proving this by their inaction on legislation and words.

- Keeping the filibuster in place allows them to tell the public that they are following principles – when in fact this is convenient cover to prevent them having to actually put skin in the game and actually vote. Can’t have their political base back in their home states see through the ruse of trying to be apolitical while still enjoying the perks of being in Congress.

- This kayfabe will probably continue unless a Rubicon line is finally crossed definitively to the point where their cowardness cannot be ignored.

Subscribe now

Links:

X/Twitter - The Toxic AmeriCAN

Website - Toxic American

YouTube - The Toxic American

Rumble - The Toxic American

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

People in the Midwest and especially the South, are long used to the derision of the usual stereotypes of being racist, backwards, and strung out on fentanyl. When these tropes aren’t being deployed against them, the ire directed turns to mocking tradition, loyalty to God and family, and having ties to ancestral lands. Other times, the heartland is described with never-ending images of patriotic Friday night football games, Sunday dinners after church, and a simplistic folksy charm in every holler. While this is a caricatured picture painted by the cosmopolitan class, it has been the norm to see for anyone who follows socio political commentary. These sentiments aren’t one-offs, and are amplified by major figures on the Left.

This perception is somewhat expected from those ensconced in a worldview that revolves around seeing the powerhouses of influence centered in coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York City, and of course, Washington D.C. Nurtured by academia and popular media, most Progressives in the sociocultural commentary field arrive with an entrenched stereotype of fly-over country as nothing more than a cultural backwater.

What raises one’s curiosity is when this mindset presents itself from conservative pundits who are raised in small-town America. Those with real-world experience and knowledge of rural life. Many of these writers and public intellectuals attempt to differentiate themselves by showing more vitriol and scorn for the hometown than displayed from a big city New York or Los Angeles writer covering the same issues.

An apt moniker to describe this type is the “HickLib.”

What is a HickLib?

The HickLib description has some fluidity for a term that can have several meanings. Urban dictionary describes a HickLib as someone from a rural area with Progressive sensibilities and beliefs. This Substack essay ‘The HickLib Phenomena “mentions the cosmopolitan migration to the heartland, especially during the Covid era, of Progressives from major cities who adopt some characteristics of country life, yet deem it necessary to “instruct” the plebs on how things should be done in accordance to liberal dogma.

I have expanded the HickLib definition to include a type of writer or public intellectual whose roots and ancestry are from small-town America, mainly in the Midwest and South, but also from other rural areas in states not within that sphere of the heartland. Generally, those in this category go out of their way to denigrate and demean the people affected by whatever issue or problem they are giving commentary about — and much further than how most liberal-leaning pundit would do.

Ironically, despite the connection of Hick and Liberal in the name, HickLib attitudes aren’t relegated to Progressive-Liberal ideology. Some of the biggest HickLibs can be found in Conservative Inc.™️ outlets such as National Review.

Take Kevin Williamson, for example. Originally from Amarillo, Texas, he is famous for punching down at the rural working class. Here is a well-known article excerpt on his thoughts regarding what should happen to small communities beset by the forces of globalism and rust-belt deindustrialization:

“If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.

Nothing happened to them…

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs.” [Bold added for emphasis]

“They deserve to die,” “Negative Assets,” and “Dysfunctional” are the rhetorical phrases and descriptors Mr. Williamson used to sum up the worth of a community of fellow Americans struggling economically. If pressed on the harshness of the verbiage, he would surely give platitudes about tough love, or maybe explain how he’s offering concrete solutions according to conservative principles. A reasonable person reads this and recognizes these are just insults disguised as sophistry for the author’s true feelings for the ruralists he disdains.

Imagine a Progressive writing in this style on the plight of the working class in a blue state or city. It never happens, even in the most fevered dream would they dare castigate a part of their voting base in such a manner. Whatever the issue, be it educational attainment levels, economic conditions, or societal ills such as drug abuse or crime, would the affected group receive this level of scorn. No, a Progressive commentator finds 100 other factors at play for the resulting socioeconomic conditions. Familiar buzzwords like redlining, over-policing, legacy of slavery, lack of investing in the community — we know these tired phrases by heart at this point. Yet the Conservative HickLib will cheerfully pile judgment and condemnation squarely on the affected rural population, as if they rightfully deserve the situation they are in.

This isn’t to say problems in rural America should not or can never be addressed in a way that neither coddles harmful pathologies nor refrains from having a critical eye. A good example was Joe Bageant, a rural Progressive who accomplished this throughout his career. His observations in the book “Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s Class War” , handled the struggles of rural life and economics without resorting to condemnation or vicious caricatures of the people living there. If a liberal can accomplish this, it shouldn’t be too much to expect this from conservative pundits as well.

The New York Times in-house “Conservative” writer David French (born in Alabama, raised in Kentucky) is an easy specimen to identify as a HickLib pundit who wraps his concern for rural Americans in a smarmy back-handed style of, “Oh look at these pitiful rubes.” With Harvard degree credentials he has built a career pretending to be the “Rural-Whisperer” for the cosmopolitan readers at NYT; thoughtfully explaining their plight as backwoods folks who just haven’t quite seen the Progressive light. That French is held up as an example of a Christian becomes farce when examining some of his viewpoints on morality.

These are just two examples of the Conservative HickLib pundit, yet the bigger questions are how one becomes a Conservative Inc.™️ HickLib, and what benefits are there to this style of observation.

Becoming a HickLib

The simplest way to explain what creates a HickLib comes down to one of the oldest human emotions: Resentment.

Growing up in rural America can be stifling to those who feel an innate disconnection to the customs and traditions. A sense of otherness can begin to develop for individuals who do not feel part of the culture. This usually starts in grade school, especially if one is considered different for being smarter than their peers.

This isn’t to say that educational aptitude should be viewed as an instant sign that someone will become resentful of their rural roots. Many intelligent students in rural areas go on to do great things in life, have good careers, and hold up their hometown or region as a place of pride and affection. But a subset carries bitterness for never having had a sense of belonging to these places long after they have left.

Obviously, not everyone holds endearment for where they come from, and this feeling extends beyond rural areas. Lots of people reinvent themselves after leaving home and going out into the world to make their mark. Unlike a HickLib, most do not parlay these experiences into a career of slander against the folks back home.

The Conservative HickLib commentator crowd utilizes this resentment to their benefit, especially when they conclude that it is advantageous to their professional standing. Ironically, they employ that sense of otherness they felt towards not being part of the rural communities they come from in a similar fashion when beginning a career as a political pundit.

Advantages in the corporate media world

The greatest advantage to being a Conservative HickLib figure working in liberal media is the access and quasi-acceptance that is gained. Claiming rural standing and bonafides with a peacocking stance of “From them, but not of them” grants status within Progressive media circles. This ensures the invitations to academic events, social affairs, and media appearances keep coming for whenever someone is needed who speaks fluent flyover language, but also doesn’t have too much affection and ties that would muddy the liberal narratives for these topics. This straddling of the line between liberal and conservative keeps them in demand.

Another edge this gives the HickLib is the ability to feign outrage when accused of not being a conservative. Any claim to the contrary is quickly met by them touting their credentials of being from rural areas and having traditional values as a shield of authenticity to deflect criticism. While holding Progressive viewpoints in every way except the title, this veil of conservative respectability provides cover to freely attack and criticize others on the Right.

Why this is harmful

Caricatures of rural culture and issues affecting flyover America are not helped by the Conservative HickLib pundit’s faux solidarity. This harm is compounded when Left-leaning media cheerfully point at the HickLib critiques of the heartland to justify whatever Progressive moral framing is required for the day. These Conservative Inc.™️ figures do more injury by reinforcing and amplifying disdainful attitudes towards rural America than any liberal outlet could imagine.

“We all get a little Southern when this nation is going fascist.”

-Tressie McMillan Cottom

Recently, New York Times columnists David French, Jamelle Bouie, and Tressie Cottom sat down and discussed Donald Trump and the American South. This might be shocking to some, but it was not all good news.

This conversation was titled, There Is No Trump Without the South.

The conversation itself was nothing all that special with the standard fare of claiming Trump is the resurrection of Huey Long, George Wallace, and possibly Jefferson Davis. The writers made sure to lament how regrettable the existence of the South is, and that its very presence in America dares to influence national politics.1

Hearing tired tropes about the South, even from a group of New York Times writers proclaiming their Southerness at the start of the show was not surprising. Throughout the discussion, a vision is painted of modern-day Plantations dotting the South with aristocrats lounging on the veranda, and quietly sipping iced tea as they look out at the day’s activities with smug satisfaction.2

The usual cringe I’ve come to expect from the NYT was almost immediate, as this exchange between French and Cottom3 displayed:

Okay… moving on.

Tressie Cottom is later asked what advice she would give to the Democratic party to have electoral success in the South.

She states:

Endorsing tactics of direct racial appeals in a conversation centered around accusing Trump of the same is peak irony. Cottom indirectly mentioning that demographics is destiny in the political realm was not missed.

There were funnier moments in the discussion, especially when Jamelle Bouie likened the increasing numbers of people moving to the South from Blue states, Texas in particular, only doing so for the chance to live out some warped “Yellowstone” fantasy, LARPing as the fictional patriarch John Dutton while they bark orders to random folks on the street — and maybe taking the Amazon delivery guy to the Train Station if packages are late.4

The discussion then pivoted to the differences between regions, with this statement describing why people move to blue-coded cities and states like California.

Bouie says:

California is a bastion for Cultural Equality? What does that actually mean in practice? Online searches kept referring to Cultural Equality as Cultural Equity,5 but the best definition is from the 𝕏 AI Grok, who stated:

“Cultural equality refers to the principle that all cultural groups, regardless of their background, ethnicity, or traditions, should have equal recognition, respect, and opportunities within a society. It emphasizes the fair treatment of diverse cultural identities, ensuring no group is marginalized or privileged over others in social, political, or economic contexts. This concept promotes inclusivity, mutual understanding, and the equitable sharing of resources and representation while acknowledging and valuing cultural differences.”

Bouie, a Virginia-based writer who has worked for the Daily Beast, Slate, and The New York Times, has never lived in California. Researching further, I found a few public events in academia he has attended in the state and some nice pictures of the beach he took while here.6 To speak on authority for a state of this size after such limited exposure is on-brand.

His technique of shallow sophist rhetoric is familiar territory, as I have written about in the past.

Generalizations and Realities

This idea of California as some exemplar of equality on a cultural level is as comical (and false) as the generalizations made about the South. Yet both have their purposes for the Progressive Left. The polarizing language and attitudes for the South help to reinforce the “otherness” of the region as it is (with some exceptions) an almost solid red Republican stronghold. Democrat operatives like Bouie, French and Cottom maybe publicly denounce the Schmittian friend/enemy distinctions, but they fully understand the concept and put it into practice, however subtly.

Blue state = Friends

Red state = Enemy

The cultural balkanization and enclaves across California are readily apparent to anyone who lives here. The slogan of “60 nations and 200 languages” is even used by the state’s current healthcare drive by Covered California. 10 million residents, or 25% of the 40 million total are foreign born. To ignore the frictions this creates is willful ignorance at this point.

Yet this idea of equality, any kind of equality is something of a farce, and the political kabuki theater of pretending that it exists is beginning to wear thin. California leads the nation in income inequality, poor health outcomes, and homelessness. In an attempt to mask these glaring deficiencies, a constant propaganda message of kumbaya cosmopolitanism and the idea it being a multicultural utopia is broadcast from sources in media like The New York Times. It tells whoever is susceptible that Good People live in places like California. Virtuous and Caring People. Simply put, the equality mantra is a constant political campaign for a friendly blue state.

Obviously, I am not saying there are not good people in the state that I have lived in for nearly 20 years.7 Nor is it the hellscape that Fox News portrays. But, as a native of the South, I too had clichéd notions of what California was going to be like through the power of media and television before coming here. The day-to-day experiences quickly put those false notions out of my mind. There isn’t a secure economic middle ground available for many in the former “Golden” state.

For the Progressive Left to paper over the problems and issues here is not fair to Californians. Neither is it fair to Southerners to try and use illusions of superiority as a cudgel against them and the region.

- Arthur

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

One more Bouie quote.

Share

For many fans of cinema, movie director Paul Verhoeven needs no introduction. Those not familiar with him by name only will undoubtedly recognize several films from his vast body of work in the industry. Total Recall, Showgirls, and Starship Troopers1 are a few easily identified movies that have become cult classics in one fashion or another.

Verhoeven’s style of directing and looking at the bigger societal picture reminds me of Denis Villeneuve, another director whose films make one think on the issues raised long after seeing their work. The small details these directors add are what really make the fictional worlds they create stand out to the audience.

His 1987 science fiction dystopian film Robocop has always fascinated me; from watching it at a very inappropriate young age2, to even now almost four decades after its initial release. Proof of its appeal show in the numerous sequels, reboots, and video games that are still being produced today. The movie always kind of hit differently, and over the years of re-watching it from time to time, some new perspectives began to emerge.

Plot summary (no spoilers)

The plot of the movie revolves around Detroit police officer Alex Murphy being transferred to a very dangerous precinct of the city, one that he personally requested. This is remarked upon by other officers, chiding him about voluntarily leaving what they considered a cushy assignment in the suburbs. Viewers quickly learn that Murphy has a deep sense of duty and upholding the law, hence why he goes where he can make the biggest difference.3

Set in 2043, the city of Detroit is de facto ruled by the Omni Consumer Products (OCP) corporation, with the company controlling the police force and having influence in most other functions of the city. Large parts of the metropolis, mainly in an area called “Old Detroit”, are practically lawless zones, with many in the police department contemplating going on strike for better pay and work conditions. Police are being injured and killed daily with the lack of resources and support from OCP becoming apparent. Unbeknownst to the cops, OCP is quietly working on replacing them altogether with autonomous AI law enforcement robots. How this project is faltering gets shown in a dark company boardroom scene where the ED-209 prototype malfunctions and performs an impromptu downsizing of a junior corporate executive.

At the station, Murphy is paired with his new partner Lewis, a street smart officer who is nicely played by actress Nancy Allen.4 While on patrol. Murphy is apparently killed by a criminal gang run by Clarence Boddiker, who the audience later finds out has high-level connections within the OCP corporation, and is helping to foment the crime wave in “Old Detroit” to forward the goals of OCP’s eventual takeover and rebuilding of the city to their liking.

OCP takes this opportunity to transform his corpse into a cybernetic law enforcement officer aptly named: Robocop. This fusion of man and machine is programmed with three prime directives; serve the public trust, protect the innocent, and uphold the law. A hidden 4^th directive prevents Robocop from arresting or harming any OCP executives.

Robocop is returned to the original precinct Murphy initially was assigned to and begins his duties as an efficient crime fighter. The rest of the movie is an interesting study on the ramifications of putting a human into a cybernetic body, as well as touching on themes of corporate greed and overall decay in a supposed “advanced” technological society.

That the movie still holds up nearly 40 years after its release is a testament to director Verhoeven’s skill and vision.

What Stands Out

On the surface, Robocop presents as a standard 1980s Sci-Fi film about a cyborg crime fighter in a fictional dystopian future city riddled with corporate greed.

But a closer look at the smaller elements added into the film reveal a much larger understanding of the world that Verhoeven created, thus what makes this a special film. Take the occasional news reports and commercials interspersed throughout the movie, for example. These brief glimpses into events happening within this universe show the audience a macro view of the dystopian future envisioned.

Progress?

One commercial begins with a kindly doctor walking the hallway of a medical center and extolling the wonders of having an artificial heart. It isn’t mentioned, yet it’s implied that in this fictional world, practically all organs5 can now be replaced… for a price.

The doctor cheerfully goes over the number of heart models that are available, like a high activity sports model and even including specific brands such as Jensen and Yamaha customers can choose from. He doesn’t forget to remark that financing, extended warranty, and tax credits can be options to obtain these technological wonders of medicine. Sound familiar?

Compare this satirical sales pitch of a fictional healthcare industry with what’s presented today and there isn’t much of a difference. Turn on any channel and one is bombarded with advertisements from the pharmaceutical industry promising untold benefits and wellness from their products. Between Ozempic, Neuralink, and other marvels of science, everything is seemingly available for those who can afford it. No, we haven’t quite mastered artificial organ replacement, but is it that far away in our future at this point?6

Another commercial is for a board game called “Nuke Em” that makes light of the looming threat during the Cold War of nuclear conflict. A family cheerfully gathers in the living room to simulate global destruction of humanity in a nuclear fireball.

This bit satire on the attitude of possible annihilation of the human race is humorous but has the danger of nuclear conflict truly passed? Some act as if it is entirely gone. If anything, the current age has brought this danger more into the realm of possibility as rogue powers attempt to become nuclear-tipped nations.

The Media

The fictional news program gives even more insight into what kind of world Robocop is. Named “MediaBreak”, it acts as a stand-in for modern newscasts such as CNN or Fox, with the two anchors delivering their reports in a tone usually reserved for a sunny weather forecast—no matter the subject material.

Even as this fictional world is on fire7, the flippant attitude displayed by the news media eerily resembles a lot of coverage seen today. One sequence reports on a firefight between US military forces and Mexican rebels in Acapulco with the seriousness of a city park playground grand opening. Another mentions the possibility of nuclear war in Africa with the air and brevity of a local tax proposal. The sycophancy shown by the media towards OCP isn’t missed either.

However, this mirrors a lot of modern media today.

A good portion of mainstream media’s coverage of current geopolitical situations present them in the simplest, Marvel-brained8 way possible. Events that could easily spill over into larger, far more dangerous global conflicts, are treated like a sitcom plot where the only thing to figure out is how to get the clueless dad character to understand his kids.

This is only turbo-charged by the 24/7 news cycle and the rise of social media journalism. Robocop wasn’t the only cinema to predict the current media apathy, but it captures the essence of this phenomenon nicely.9

Omni Consumer Products

The real villain of the movie isn’t the crime boss Boddiker, or the chaos in the streets caused by rampant crime. No, it is the soulless OCP mega-corporation and its ambitions to make an American city their own personal fiefdom for profit and total control. A company with its tentacles and reach that expands into military weaponry and private space exploration (sound familiar?) with profit and shareholder dividends driving every decision. OCP represents the Apex of predatory capitalism taken to its logical (and horrific) conclusion.

A company that owns the very souls of its employees.10

This message of an overbearing corporate entity hits a little too close to home as society becomes accustomed to the modern titans of Amazon, Google, and yes, even former darlings of the Right like Elon Musk’s companies SpaceX and Tesla.11 The intrusions into our lives have become inescapable with others such as Palantir and Blackrock joining the list of corporations whose intentions for humanity can be, well, suspect is saying it politely. Adding in the promises of AI as a sort of paradigm of virtue and prosperity for society as a whole — without fully showing evidence for such claims, and it begins to feel dystopian indeed.

Conclusion

Verhoeven’s Robocop is a visualization of a future world of transhumanism, apathy, advanced technology, and levels of corporate control thought unimaginable just four decades ago. The reality of our modern age is much too similar to this fictional movie than many would like to admit.