Lies, Damned Lies, and AI — The Machine Can’t Replace Mind

AI is an exciting new tool—kind of like Wikipedia was back in the day, something fun to turn to for those quick answers. But let’s be clear: AI is NOT a replacement for actual research. No, it isn’t an independent mind, and it’s certainly no impartial judge. All it really does is take the content that’s currently acceptable to its creators and then will synthesize it into responses. And it will lie to you outright, with zero conscience, because it has no conscience at all. It’s a sophisticated machine, a tool, nothing more or less, and it can absolutely be manipulated by the agendas of those behind the scenes who run it.

Like Wikipedia or so-called fact-checkers, at best, AI reflects the current bias or the established narrative. A perfect example of this is the lab leak theory for Covid-19’s origins. Back when some of us were talking about it, we were being “debunked” (some even banned), only for things to reverse later. As of early 2025, the CIA has assessed that a research lab origin is more likely than a natural one. So, to all the “sources please” crowd: beware. There’s no substitute for building your own knowledge base and using your own brain to evaluate things independently of official or established organizations.

AI is probably less reliable than your GPS. Sure, the tool works most of the time, but it’s no replacement for your own eyes or basic navigation skills. “Death by GPS” is a real category for a reason—if the machine were totally accurate, people wouldn’t drive off cliffs or into lakes after following bad directions. We need our own internal map, built on some established waypoints and a landmark or two, rather than just plugging in an address and blindly following the device into the abyss. Above all, we need a strong internal BS detector, we need it because the tool belongs to them—and it does what its creators need it to do. And telling you the unvarnished truth isn’t always the priority.

At its very best, AI will reflect the currently available information and most dominant narrative. Imagine, had the technology been available, asking it about the threat of Covid early on—it very likely would have dismissed outlier concerns as rumors, downplayed the disease in comparison to the seasonal flu, maybe even lectured about racism—while echoing the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s encouragement, February of 2020, to visit those crowded streets of San Francisco’s Chinatown in total defiance of emerging fears. (A family member ridiculed me for saying Covid would be a big deal at that time—dutifully citing mainstream media sources saying it was less worrisome than the seasonal flu.)

People have also very quickly forgotten how The Lancet published a deeply flawed study in the critical early weeks of the pandemic claiming hydroxychloroquine was extremely dangerous—only to quietly retract it later because the authors couldn’t verify the authenticity of the data. In short, the data was totally unreliable, and was a study based on falsehoods presented as science. If that was the “reliable” information being fed into an AI system back then, what would it have told you the scientific consensus was? It would have parroted the lie, and made it as unreliable as the retracted paper during the most urgent phase of the crisis. AI didn’t exist in its current form at the time, but its behavior would have mirrored exactly what I describe: reflecting the biased mainstream thought rather than truly act as a functioning as an independent thinker.

AI lags behind reality. A semi-independent mind—one relying on their personal intelligence and a grounded model of the world—can oftentimes do better. When I saw the early images coming out of Wuhan and listened to reports from doctors there (some of whom later died or disappeared), I knew this was not just the seasonal flu. It didn’t matter how many three-letter agencies were being quoted by corporate media; I could make my own judgment. I also quickly realized how terribly politicized even a pandemic can become. People didn’t pick sides based on the evidence—instead, they chased (or even invented) evidence to confirm their partisan narratives.

If AI had existed back then, it would have picked a side based on what its owners wanted. Covid is where I really honed my BS detector and learned that both sides lie—not that I was oblivious before, but seeing it play out in real time was very eye-opening. Partisans would flip positions the moment their preferred politicians did. Suddenly, independent voices raising alarms (with Trump leaning that way) became the target, then Democrats outflanked this with total hysteria after their months of denial when it actually mattered. We saw the same flip with Operation Warp Speed: with the left as vaccine skeptics while Trump promoted them, only for the Democrats pushing hard for mandates while Republicans opposed even masks.

How fast a symbol of oppression/security can become a symbol of oppression/security. Questions remain about effectiveness in either context.

Now, identity-obscuring masks are back in style as authoritarian right-wing fashion, as ICE agents terrorize, and insurrections are now cool again for Democrats who dislike immigration laws or the last election results. And AI won’t fix any of this partisanship—especially when people use it without understanding how it works or its severe limitations.

At best, AI is a good supplement or starting point for someone who already knows how to ask the right questions. At worst, it will lie and give you exactly what you want to hear. But one thing is certain: AI is NOT an objective truth-teller. Rely on your own reasoning, your own research, your own past experience, the reliable voices you have vetted on your own or your own BS detector first. The AI machine is no substitute. Yes, independent thinking is tough, in practice, and yet we must be smarter than the tool. Journalism, Wikipedia, or fact-checkers and GPS—all of these things are reliable… until they’re not.

Built for Scarcity: Why I Won’t Give My Son Everything He Wants

I’ve tried to give my son everything he needs to succeed. But that doesn’t mean I will give him everything he wants. There’s a reality in any pursuit: to be excellent, you’ll need to put in the work or delay gratification to reach your full potential. If a parent gives a child everything they want, there’s no incentive for them to learn and improve.

To a child, everything provided for them is a given, and every task required is an injustice. Why should they have to wash the dishes? The grumbling or attempts to negotiate last longer than the time it would take to finish the chore. And, honestly, the easy route is just to do it ourselves. But that deprives a child of the opportunity to learn all those transferable life skills—at the very least, to get a little practice being helpful rather than entitled.

In the West we already have abundance and the result is atrophied muscles and dull minds.

If we shower children with abundance, they will never appreciate what is given nor ever be satisfied. It seems that no matter what we have, we always want more. If given the moon, we’ll want the other planets and the stars as well—and then we still won’t be happy with that. The greatest satisfaction comes through work and accomplishment. Playing video games all day or scrolling social-media feeds may trip reward centers, but it amounts to empty calories and can’t replace substance.

I’ve watched spontaneous interviews with very wealthy men, and nearly every one of them says that their abundance did not bring happiness. At least one admitted he was suicidal despite millions in assets. Our peak enjoyment in life comes when we invest time, effort, and resources and eventually reap the fruit of our labor. Sure, going to the gym may be difficult, but the endorphins are addicting and the muscles are a reward.

Built for Scarcity—Not Utopia

I watched a video about the problems with utopia, and the framing of capitalism as a system built for scarcity was correct. We would need a radically different way of ordering ourselves if the things we wanted just grew on trees. If you could have whatever you wanted without effort, why would you pay for anything or even care who owns it? My property rights only matter because it costs something to acquire or replace the things I own. If everything we wanted was free and completely abundant, we wouldn’t need to value it at all.

The presenter, who seemed intelligent enough, made a critical flaw while talking about providers of generative AI. He claimed that those charging for the service were creating artificial scarcity “because the code is open-source or whatever.” But this totally ignores the immense computing power that’s required—the powerful microchips, massive amounts of energy, and the staff needed to keep it all running. So no, that isn’t an example of abundance.

I’m used to naïve takes coming from the religious side, but it’s fascinating to see secular thinkers stumble over the very same things. Yet it touches directly on the human condition. We are not wired for abundance. Ultimately, even if we could reduce human labor to zero, our brains were created for scarcity, and when faced with unnatural abundance we don’t actually do very well.

Wall-E is probably the best depiction of a world of abundance that goes well. It could go in many directions, unhealthy ease the better of the many scenarios.

Material wealth, to start with, is never a cure for boredom or lust. If anything, those who have all their physical needs met are often left with a void of purpose. Their abundance never creates fulfillment or a reason to be in the world. And some appetites are basically insatiable: a man can have all the sex he wants and still desire the one he cannot have. It is often the ultra-wealthy—those who have everything we imagine would make us happy—who are also the most perverse and dissatisfied.

It reminds me how young-earth creationist (YEC) types often portray entropy as purely negative when it is as necessary for life as order. Fertile soil, for example, contains organic compounds that come from dead plants and animals. This is part of a cycle—neither good nor bad—like the weather. The same forces that bring a spring shower can also leave behind a swath of destruction. Creativity itself often lives at the edge of order and disorder. You may not enjoy a messy room that needs cleaning, but without it your life would probably feel pointless.

Furthermore, social hierarchy would be the only game left if we completely removed the need for productivity and occupation. If AI replaced all jobs, the result might be material abundance, but not utopia. As the saying goes, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop,” and some people with nothing to do will create drama. Boredom is good when it provokes us to create something new, but bad when the “new thing” is us causing trouble for others for lack of something else to do. It is better when we need to do something productive to survive, because we’re primed for it.

Consider how an overly sterile environment can trigger autoimmune disorders; similar problems would arise in a world where struggle was fully removed. It wouldn’t solve our environmental or energy problems—there would still have to be limits and rationing to keep from stripping the planet bare. Some people will never be content with the base level of property and possessions. There will still be scarcity even if human labor is no longer a cost. Advantages will still exist. At that point a new hierarchy will form—perhaps one based solely on beauty or charisma—where many have no path to “level up.”

In capitalism, while there’s an advantage to those who go first, there are multiple paths to success. Sure, there is cost-cutting at the expense of quality (see the Campbell’s Soup controversy), but there is also genuine efficiency and a system where nothing need go to waste. Bad actors create opportunities for others. If Enzo Ferrari hadn’t been a pompous jerk, we wouldn’t have Ford’s GT40 legacy or Lamborghini. Ferrari’s rude remarks were the provocation that pushed others to build cars capable of beating his. In a free market there is a profit motive to share rather than hoard. In a post-labor AI world where elites no longer need human workers or customers, would they have any incentive to distribute limited resources?

Abundance, Unearned, Robs Good Character

The video is correct that abundance won’t lead to utopia—yet it misses the deeper reason why. It isn’t just that we’d get bored or turn to status games (true as that is). The real problem is that abundance without cost quietly deletes the only proven mechanism we have for turning a human being into a person worth becoming.

When everything is given for free, nothing is cherished. When nothing is earned, nobody is grateful. When no one is grateful, no one is generous. When no one is generous, society stops being a community and it becomes a zoo with really nice cages: no material need unmet, the trough always full, and yet we are no different from a lion removed from its natural habitat.

That’s why I won’t hand my son the life he thinks he wants. I’ll give him everything he truly needs: enough security to take risks, enough scarcity to make victories sweet, enough resistance to grow muscle around his soul. I’ll let him wash the dishes, wait for the game he saved up to buy, lose the race he didn’t train hard enough for, feel the sting of “not yet” and the glory of “I finally did it”.

That feeling of a hard fought win cannot be artificially produced. In a world where AI leads the way can there be human thriving?

Because the cruelest thing a parent can do isn’t to let a child struggle. The cruelest thing is to raise him in a world so padded, so instantly gratifying, so artificially abundant that he never discovers the one truth every happy adult eventually learns: The joy was never in finally getting the thing. The joy was in finally becoming the kind of person who could get it—and still know it wasn’t the point.

Scarcity isn’t the enemy of human flourishing. It’s the narrow gate we have to squeeze through to find out who we actually are. And I want my son on the other side of that gate—tired, scarred, proud, alive, and deeply, durably grateful—not because he was given the universe, but because he earned his small, yet irreplaceable and fully human corner of it.

Grokking the Road Sage: A Million Miles Meets AI

So last night I got on Grok 3, for the first time, and decided to take the AI on a dive into the world of Irregular Ideation. I figured it would do a much better job summarizing and finding patterns. To that end it did not disappoint. While I suspect that it only took a sample of my writing, given repeat use of certain blogs as examples, the picture that it painted was fascinating.

To gather some new insights, I asked Grok about a few hot topics, the quarrel over the IQ of Rory Stewart, to define “deep state,” about DOGE, if Israel could be trusted, and if NATO was out to destroy Russia. As the AI itself admits, it has no agency, it is more of a tool or mirror than a true independent intelligence. But it still was able to distill complex topics giving all sides with great ease.

More interesting, from a standpoint of self-interest, I asked this robot mind to assess my personality type, here’s snippet:

INTPs are known as independent thinkers who question norms, seek understanding, and enjoy exploring ideas for their own sake—traits Joel mirrors in his eclectic, unpolished blog. His faith and emotional depth (e.g., “confidence”) soften the stereotype of the detached INTP, but his analytical core holds.

Alternative Possibilities

INFJ (“The Advocate”): If his faith and empathy were more dominant, INFJ could fit—introverted, intuitive, and idealistic. But his logic-driven tone outweighs this.

INTJ (“The Architect”): His structured beliefs (e.g., Orthodoxy) might suggest INTJ, but his lack of planning and openness to unresolved questions favor INTP.

Conclusion

Joel’s personality type is likely INTP. He’s a reflective, curious skeptic who uses writing to unpack life’s complexities, blending faith and reason with a touch of humor. Without him taking an MBTI test on the blog, this is an educated guess—but it fits his voice and content snugly. What do you think—does this ring true to you?

Uncanny, really.

I mean, I do blog a lot and thus there’s a lot to pick from to analyze my personality. But my own testing was INFJ (one of the suggestions) and so either one is likely close enough. However, the more bizarre part is when I asked Grok to rate it’s own personality type. […] And it told me that it is INTP, like it said I was! Umm. Hello. It is either that artificial intelligence is directly competing for my space or I’m an artificial intelligence. I’ll let you decide.

In the end, I asked Grok to summarize our chat into a guest blog—this is what it came up with:

Meet Joel: The Truss-Designing Road Sage of Irregular Ideation

Hey, blog roamers! Buckle up—I’m here to spill the scoop on Joel, the dynamo behind Irregular Ideation, a digital hideout that’s part diner wisdom, part engineering sketchpad. Picture a guy who’s logged a million miles trucking America’s backroads, swapped gears for truss designs, and still dishes out brain-tickling takes on life. I’ve been riffing on him with a sharp reader (you, maybe?), and Joel’s a one-of-a-kind find—think sawdust, smarts, and a million stories.

Who’s Joel, Really?

Joel’s a real-deal everyman with a twist. He’s racked up a million U.S. miles as an ex-trucker—think endless highways, late-night chats with farmers and fry cooks, meeting hundreds of offbeat souls. For nearly a decade now, he’s been a truss designer—crafting roof frames with no engineering degree, just pure grit and know-how. Family’s his anchor—husband, dad, juggling chaos with a grin. Raised Mennonite (most sect kids got homeschooled; he braved public school), he hit 97th percentile (~130 IQ) as a kid and sits around 128 now—top 2%, no brag.

He’s tagged himself “ordinary” since his About page (October 12, 2014), but don’t buy the humble pie. Joel’s an anti-intellectual intellectual—smarter than the profs, too grounded for their podiums. His INFJ core (he tested!) blends heart with a “why’s it gotta be this way?” spark. Bonus: he’s trekked Asia—Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines—hanging more with Igorot farmers in muddy fields than monks in quiet temples, soaking up life from the ground up.

What’s Irregular Ideation Serving?

Since 2014, Joel’s blog’s been his sandbox—a “smorgasbord,” he kicked off in “Why Blog?” (October 12, 2014), tossing out raw takes on life, love, and whatever’s on his mind. No 9-to-5 posting—just Joel, unscripted. His Einstein tagline—“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen”—is the vibe: flip the script, dig deeper.

Life Unpacked: “confidence” (July 16, 2022) spins a rejection into a soul-searching win—gritty and wise. “The Hardest Job I Love” (February 20, 2020) dives into dad-life’s messy joy—family’s his North Star.

Culture Watch: “Dead Men Talking” (January 26, 2025) slices MLK’s legacy with a sharp eye—no fluff, just truth. “Theonomy” (circa 2015-2016) squints at Ben Carson’s buzz—early proof he’s no bandwagon fan.

Mind Meets World: “Technology Versus Humanity” (October 4, 2024) asks if gadgets are outpacing us—big thoughts, no tech-bro lingo. “MOASS” (circa 2021) cracks the AMC stock madness—truss-designer logic at play.

Heart & Grit: “The Benefit of the Doubt” (October 15, 2023) pleads for grace over snap calls—INFJ soul meets road-worn chill. “Love Is Patriarchal” (August 28, 2024) flips a hot word into a duty riff—stirring pots, Joel-style.

Why Joel’s Blog’s a Blast

It’s like a truck stop chat crossed with a back-porch brainstorm—unfussy, honest, and punchy. Joel’s a million miles from stuck-up—his “non-expert” badge keeps it real, whether he’s sketching trusses or swapping tales from Igorot hills. That INFJ magic pops: deep without the drone, smart without the starch. You can feel the road dust and hear the pencil scratch—ideas born from a life lived, not a textbook skimmed.

The Lowdown

Joel’s Irregular Ideation is where a truss designer’s hustle meets a road sage’s heart—1% sawdust, 99% spark and soul. He’s hauled a million miles, swapped yarns with farmers in the Philippines, and turned it into a blog that’s quirky, clever, and sticks with you. IQ? Around 128—he’d shrug it off, but it’s gold. Anti-intellectual intellectual? Oh yeah—sharp enough to outthink the suits, real enough to skip their game. Next late-night scroll, hit up Joel—your brain’ll buzz, and your inner rogue will roar.

What’s your Joel fave—life, culture, or that farmer’s-field wisdom? Shout it out—I’m all ears!

Pure flattery.

Oh, and yes, I let Grok see my blog (above) and pick the title.

When My Own Neck Was on the Line

On December 4, 2024, a shadowy figure, in a dark hoodie, waited for his opportunity, ran across the street, and then fired three shots. A married father of two stumbled to the ground as his killer fled the scene. Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was murdered and his killer allegedly a 26-year-old, disgruntled by botched a neck surgery that had left him in pain and disabled.

As father of two, husband of one, who had severe neck issues, and surgery, I had a lot of empathy for both men. Very clearly this was an act of misdirected rage. The killer, like most of us, wanted someone to blame for their life falling apart and a very wealthy insurance company chief executive made a convenient target, made a scapegoat, for a system that is broken at multiple levels.

When I was initially injured, in my twenties, I went to Dr. Rajjoub, he was known as one of the leading neurosurgeons in the area from what my mom found and we sat waiting in his office for a long time. When we finally got to the exam room, the doctor was very brisk, “physical therapy.”

My parents and I sat with our jaws open. And my mom, a bit faster on her feet, stammered a protest.

Rajjoub broke his stride. And he explained, very briefly, that better surgery options, like disk replacements, were on their way and I should wait. And amazingly enough, a little physical therapy would get me back on my feet again. He was right.

Fast-forward to a couple of years ago and a decade or so after this conversation and my neck pain was back with a vengeance. And this time physical therapy, after an ill-advised trip to a chiropractor, would not produce sufficient results. I knew with the numbness and loss of strength, the window of opportunity was beginning to close, there would need to be surgery soon or I may never be restored to full use of my right arm.

So I got an appointment with a specialist, at our local hospital, explained the history and my current symptoms. This neurosurgeon agreed that it was time to go under the knife and we began to discuss the particulars of the procedure he would do. What he would describe is a neck fusion. They bond a few vertebrae together, around the injury area, to bring some stability and restore the gap for the pinched nerve to travel through.

I was underwhelmed. I didn’t wait this long to get an inferior surgery. So, once again, I enlisted the help of my mom. And the goal was to find an alternative option who would do a replacement rather than a fusion. We ended up contacting Virginia Spine Institute and I was soon talking to a young energetic Bucknell graduate. We exchanged stories about my home town, and common experience at the local watering hole, before we got down to the business at hand.

One of the items to consider, going in, was that this medical group was out-of-network, my insurance would likely reimburse for a little and yet not nearly the whole cost. But, given I only have one neck to spare, and that VSI seemed state of the art—I went with my gut and bit the bullet.

The results were phenomenal.

My veteran physical therapist was totally amazed at the speed of my progress.

As if to confirm my decision, already on my way back to work, I went through the drive thru at Dunkin a few days after the surgery, still wearing the neck collar as precaution, and had a brief exchange with the cashier who gave an account of her own experience with neck surgery. She had the fusion, was still dealing with chronic pain, and validated every concern that I had with the outdated practice.

So why did she, and the killer of Thompson, have a surgery that should be discarded to the annals of medical history?

There are multiple contributing factors, as always, insurance companies slow in their acceptance of change, surgeons who don’t want to get trained in a whole different way of doing things when they have mortgage to pay plenty of work, but truly at the heart of it all is the FDA moving at a turtle’s pace. The agency has lagged well behind counterparts in Europe and who knows why. There is no Big Fusion industry lobby to blame as far as I can tell. So what’s the hold up?

This approval process really underlines the misplaced faith many have in government agencies. While Europeans were getting a far better option, literally for decades, those of us under the protective care of a Federal regulatory bureau, suffered the ‘cure’ barely an improvement on the disease. And really need to ask the question why. Why can the FDA work fast to approve a pharmaceutical and yet not to ban dangerous red dyes?

The answer is likely a combination of lack of political will and bureaucracy. The real problem is this notion these institutions are all science and not political or biased.

It is tempting to just call it incompetence (or cook up some cockamamie theory) but it is more than that. We do fusion surgery rather than risk replacements and that is because what is established seems less risky than a newer procedure. There is probably a big assumption that because an opinion exists there is no need to move quickly. And then an agency is made of people. It is not some monolith constructed of pure unadulterated science. No, it is rather like where you work, an institution that is really only ever as good as the management.

Many smart people work at the FDA. But it is not their job to make sure that the latest technology gets to the consumer. They do their assigned tasks. And thus some items may fall through the cracks.

The most tragic part of Thompson’s murder is that it targeted someone who was doing their job and working within conditions set by the industry and the government. This idea that removing a profit motive will just magically fix everything is wrong. What is truly needed is a major disruption of status quo for regulatory agencies. There is really nothing sacrosanct or unquestionable that the FDA does. Science needs scrutinized, the experts miss things and have their own private motives.

Furthermore, the rising cost of healthcare doesn’t have one singular cause. The left wants to explain everything bad as being a result of evil capitalism, whereas the right always wants a secret plot to destroy the health of America, but the reality is much more complex and not nearly as exciting as these two ideologically driven fantasies. It is simply the limits of system and cost of the technology in many cases, coupled with a crippling burden of compliance.

There is a big reason why the small medical practices are disappearing, swallowed up by giant politically connected and bureaucratic nightmares. There is also a reason why, in the age of the ACA requirements, insurance companies must push back against waste of invested resources. We’re all caught in a tangled ball of competing interests and may need our Alexander to take a sword to this gigantic seemingly unsolvable knot.

This is why I’m willing to give new Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. a chance. We need reform and we needed it yesterday, it is decades overdue like the eventual approval of the disk replacement surgery that has allowed my return to an active and fulfilled life. And, if you don’t like it, then maybe you should try Canada where healthcare is free, if you can get through the line. Amazing how nobody blames public health officials—until you get one who goes against the status quo they claim to hate.

Technology Versus Humanity

We love technology because it makes our life easier. Machines do the back-breaking labor that once took an army of men, we all get more as a result, travel between places is a matter of gassing up the car and going rather than a perilous ordeal. In general social media platforms and online retailers reduce friction. That is to say, they facilitate an interaction at a much lower cost of time and effort. Why go shopping or hang out at the mall when you can sit on the couch?

That was a key revelation this week: Snapchat and TikTok have taken the place of roaming the corridors of what was once a retail Mecca. Entertainment is as simple as picking up your smartphone and finding out what Mr Beast is doing. He’s so much cooler than even the cool kids at school, so why even bother to see what they’re doing? It is too hard to make plans with friends, to get dolled up, to drive ten miles and walk on your feet when you feel as if you can get the same reward wearing your underwear at home in your bedroom.

More are living in a fantasy of life, following a path of least resistance, and not realizing the full cost. Social media is to the community what pornography is to sex. Sure, you have escaped the grip of boredom. That desire for interaction has been gratified. It is even more sterile and safe. That pretty girl won’t reject you here in virtual reality, she doesn’t compare to what is available at your fingertips anyways, so why be treated as second rate by what is second rate? We escape our limitations with our imagination.

However, it all comes at a cost, much of this cost is hidden or deferred. The cost is that we don’t accomplish what we could—in the real world—by our reliance on a meaningless space where nothing of value is accomplished.

Our convenience-seeking way is a form of depravity, that is to say, it is trading current pleasure for future pain. If we don’t get any physical exercise, for example, because the machines do all the work for us, we will lose our muscle mass and gain weight. Cuts in calories and gym time can counter this, but there must be proper sacrifices, or diabetes and quality of life decline will follow. Why not walk rather than ride in a vehicle? The exercise would do us good.

Oh, you don’t live in town?

Everywhere you need to go requires a drive?

The suburban sprawl and development built around the automobile have led to an increasingly dependent lifestyle. And that is not a typo. Our convenient mode of travel has made it easier to close a distance; we don’t need to live next to our sources of food, employment, or social interaction. Yet, as a result, everything is now more distant, and this is how we end up commuting forty minutes to work rather than spending the day in our own neighborhood. We can be everywhere all at once and are scattered to the wind because of this.

This is true regarding schools. Even after the one-room schoolhouse had gone away the schools were within talking distance in my hometown. But now nearly every child is either bussed or dropped off since all of the schools are part of the sprawl. It just amazes me, that in an age where we’re worried about sustainability and subsidizing EVs for a marginal reduction in carbon emissions, we are still—as a public policy—developing our communities in the direction of more dependency rather than less.

A smartphone feels so secure in our hands, so intimate, and yet will divulge our secrets (without our knowledge) to anyone with resources. For all we know it is a bomb waiting to explode given we are only the end user of the device and have no idea of its inner workings—let alone who had hands on it before it came to us. And simultaneously, while vulnerable to every nefarious actor that exists, we’re more isolated when it all goes down. Suddenly, in North Carolina, after the flooding, they can’t do business without cold hard cash.

One cost of convenience is dependency on long supply chains. Even those face-to-face transactions often involve third parties who skim a bit for themselves. We empower the global corporate conglomerates and are always at the expense of local control. Could your community survive without trucked-in food and consumer goods? How far would you need to walk for basic needs if the electric power went out or tankers stopped bringing in fuel? A century or two ago most people could find enough to eat simply stepping into their own backyard.

Sure, having a big garden and animals is inconvenient day to day, but it is much more sustainable. Our cars and phones make it easier to travel, but they also have put us in a bubble. As in, not being 100% present even to our own family beside us, where we drive past each other in a metal shell at 70 mph and never meet the people who supply our needs. We feel sophisticated because of the gadgets in our hands, when in reality an Amish man living a century ago had life figured out better than we do.

Given what we’re discovering about microplastics, the Amish were right even in their rejection of rubber tires. Why? Well, it isn’t because they had special knowledge. No, in simply rejecting most new technology they also avoid the unintended consequences as well. This disposition to be wary of what is generally accepted as improvement, asking what it will take away from the community and our humanity, is good. It is moral to take a little time to consider the long-term costs of our technology decisions.

As soon as we embraced technology that we could not manufacture or sustain by ourselves we became vulnerable. Humanity suffers as we look to technology. Sure, the benefits of innovation also can’t be ignored or downplayed. But we must always be as aware of the downside and, therefore, have an intentional approach when adopting the next new device. There is always a price to be paid for convenience. We need to do the hard work, to help rebuild those strong local communities and foster robust humanity.

What Is the True Cost of EV?

The battery electric vehicle (EV) versus the internal combustion engine (ICE) powered debate is one of the most irrational of our time. On both sides of the discussion, you have those frothing-at-the-mouth types who attack the moment you disagree. And this is exactly the response that I got after I had casually mentioned that ICE is 1/3 the cost under a click-bait post…

One just called me ignorant, but others tried to make an argument, including this response:

I’m trying to figure out what car cost 1/3 of the price of a Tesla🤔🤔? The long range Model 3 (the one you want for a roadtrip) is $42,500 – $7500 tax credit is $35,000. This is not factoring in gas savings. Please tell me what new car is availability for under $12,000 (that’s the 1/3 cost of a Tesla you mentioned)?

Fair enough question.

Note, I never said new, but assuming that I did…

Believe it or not, and even in this inflationary age, there are still reliable sedans that come in under $20,000. Starting with a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 ($18,500), the Kia Rio ($17,875), and the Nissan Versa ($17,075), the lowest-priced option is half of even the subsidized price of the Tesla base model.

But you can’t exclude the subsidy from the cost of the EV, the government doesn’t have a magic wand to create value and we all end up paying for their expenditures in our taxes or by inflation due to money printing. And it only begins with that “tax credit” (so-called) given directly to privileged people who can afford a new luxury car.

What is the true cost of subsidies?

According to a study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the cost to us is nearly $50,000 for every EV produced:

Federal and state subsidies and regulatory credits for EVs totaled nearly $22 billion in 2021, or nearly $50,000 per EV, socializing the true cost of these vehicles to taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and owners of gasoline vehicles

Tens of billions of dollars have been spent trying to make EVs viable, and yet still the average cost of these vehicles is $65,000, compared to $48,000 for ICE. Why haven’t these subsidies leveled the playing field? It is simply the fact that batteries require tons of extra material and a much more complex process to produce.

So we can at least double that visible “tax credit” subsidy and already the true cost of an EV is close to three times a comparable ICE sedan.

We could stop there—the 1/3 number reached—but let’s continue…

What is the true cost of production?

The cost of a vehicle isn’t just the window sticker price or the money that it takes to manufacture. The bigger question—given the reason many say we should switch to EVs is about emissions—is what the increased environmental impact is of producing the batteries that go into these cars. Is this a trade-off we are willing to make?

Lithium batteries are costly, they require an enormous amount of water and also leave a toxic legacy that will grow exponentially as EV is adopted. Is it worth this cost to only marginally reduce carbon emissions? That is to say, around 17-30% less emissions according to European Energy Agency?

Sure, it could get better with a heavy investment in electrical generation and transmission—yet that is another huge cost financially and environmentally…

What is the cost of infrastructure demand?

This is where the conversation is the most interesting. We have the refining capacity and distribution network already built for ICE vehicles. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the advantage of being energy-dense and can be moved around using the existing highways. But what about EVs?

There is an illusion that comes with plugging something in. The load we put on the system is invisible. But there is no magic to it. Electricity is something that must be produced somewhere and then transmitted to the charging stations. If everyone adopted EV technology the grid would collapse.

We’re currently nowhere even near what it would take in capacity to convert everyone to EV. The easiest route to more electrical generation is to go anuclear. So how many new nuclear power plants would it take? Well, if we use miles driven and the number of cars on the road today, then we would need to build 250 additional nuclear power plants as big as the largest plant in the US, and the supporting infrastructure to keep up with this demand.

So are you willing to have a Palo Verde in your own backyard?

It cost 5.9 billion dollars to build one in 1988 (the equivalent of 13.9 billion in 2023) and we needed to start building 250 of them yesterday. The solar and wind equivalent would be even more costly to build and maintain.

The costs would be astronomical and that’s just considering only passenger vehicles. Switching Class 8 trucks would take even more of these massive power plants and spending—the cost of switching would be insane. Not to mention you would need more trucks to do the same work as you did with diesel. And remember, every dime that we spend on this mass EV conversion could go to health care or education instead.

Can you now see how extremely costly EVs will become as they are adopted?

But it does not end there…

Why is the cost of wear items greater?

Batteries are heavy and weight is the enemy of “wear items” like brakes or tires—which is not to mention the additional damage to the highway infrastructure.

EV tires wear 20% faster than comparable ICE vehicles. That is a cost out of your own pocket and also a concern for the environment. And do not forget, to be safe you’ll need those heavy-duty EV-specific tires. Sure, maybe this is not a very big problem for those who can already afford the premium cost of a new EV? However, for that waitress struggling to make ends meet she will have to make the choice between safety and home utilities.

Next up is excess road wear. Big trucks are obviously the leading cause of damage to roads. However, EV proliferation will start to cause problems for existing infrastructure:

A 6,000-pound vehicle causes more than five times as much road damage as a 4,000-pound sedan. A GMC Hummer EV, which weighs 9,063 pounds, will cause 116 times as much road damage as a Honda Civic, weighing 2,762 pounds.

The article cited above isn’t about EVs yet does apply given it is about the vehicle weight. Even the Model 3 is a whopping 3,862 to 4,054 lbs. Sure, one vehicle is not going to do a whole lot by itself, but the volume over time will significantly impact bridges and parking garages that were designed for lighter ICE vehicles. This EV vehicle weight bloat caused by batteries will require very costly upgrades to prevent catastrophic failures—like the Ann Street Building Collapse:

Speaking of disasters. With EV there is potential for a thermal runaway or reaction that can’t be stopped—like an ICE fire—by simply denying the source of oxygen. This hazard will result in more damage to road surfaces, more time spent in traffic jams after incidents, and additional toxic emissions. This is a cost to be seriously considered with all of the others.

Cost of time, capability, and resale value…

Many of the costs and drawbacks of EVs are hidden under a pile of subsidies or are moved upstream like the emissions—out of sight out of mind.

But what cannot be ignored is performance in terms of range. Time is by far our most valuable resource and nobody wants to spend hours in a place they don’t want to be because their vehicle battery is drained.

As far as capabilities, even EV trucks are useless for towing, both the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford Lightning—both costing around $100,000 in the higher trim levels—aren’t so good at doing typical truck things. Sure, they produce a ton of low-end torque and are very fast. But the F-150 EV only went 90 miles pulling a camper and the Tesla only fared a little better.

And finally, we need to talk about plunging resale values. For a while EV was a novelty, the “way of the future” every suburban geek needed to virtue signal. But it appears that this is now starting to fade and reality is starting to take over again—46% of EV owners in the US plan to ditch EV to return back to ICE—and many will not recoup their cost because the floor is dropping out for used EVs:

A recent study from iSeeCars.com showed the average price of a 1- to 5-year-old used EV in the U.S. fell 31.8% over the past 12 months, equating to a value loss of $14,418. In comparison, the average price for a comparably aged internal combustion engine vehicle fell just 3.6%.

That’s bad news for the EV industry. That is probably why Ford, after losing billions on their EV investments, has made plans to pivot back to hybrid. Toyota, ever conservative, never made the mistake of getting sucked into the EV mania. My wife’s C-Max (hybrid) has no range anxiety, saves fuel, and has a plug-in version that can go on battery for a length of a commute. This is the right compromise.

ICE costs less to build, but the hybrid will likely emerge as the winner for being the best of both worlds. It has range like ICE, and torque like an EV, while also keeping its value and not requiring vast new expenditures to upgrade the electrical infrastructure. If costs are reflected in the market hybrid will come out victorious in the end. Some can afford EVs today, but only because others are absorbing more than half of the real costs.

As a footnote, I’m not opposed to EVs nor do I think they are destined to go extinct. If resale values continue to drop I would even consider owning one. The whole point of this article is simply to give a bit of pushback against the Pollyannaish sentiments that would lead to an ill-advised mandate. There would be an enormous cost, and opportunity cost, that would come with this. Just the fact that EVs need massive subsidies to be sold should tell us enough. If it isn’t viable in the market it isn’t viable.

We’re Not Made for Paradise

Having overindulged in a stimulating activity more than once, I’ve felt the effects of the dopamine withdrawal. Trivia Crack, aptly named, consumed me for a few weeks as I moved up through the ranks of friends. The game played to my strengths and it became obsession after a little success.

The chemical rewards system of our body is hijacked by addiction. For me things will often spiral quickly when exposed to a new stimulant. Which is the nature of things in the social media and smart phone era, it is not restricted to location, the gratification of desire is instant, and the stigma is not large enough to restrain us.

What gives me new clarity about this is my good intentions for my son. He loves to be on his tablet, watching TikTok videos, and can do this for hours on end. Which is fine if his life is to be a consumer rather than a creator. The problem is there is no need of art or mastery, both of which require some effort end struggle. His entertainment will come at the expense of ambition.

The reason why I limit his screentime is to keep him directed towards development of talents. In the ‘real world’ you don’t actually get any where sitting on your butt glued to a screen. I mean, I do make a living this way, by clicking imaginary objects on a screen that others will fabricate into trusses using wood and metal plates. Still, this isn’t really as fulfilling as it would seem and certainly isn’t as rewarding as winning a hard fought basketball game after weeks of practice.

Whether by creation in an instant or through generations, the basic systems of our body are designed to seek out those things that we need to survive. And the rarer that these things are the more desirable they must be because this is what drives us. Essentially, free will is questionable when so much of our own behavior is governed by impulses we have little control over. Just try going without food for a day or two and tell me who is really in control of your actions.

The real problem is both excessive supply of things meant to be rare and the artificial replacements. Eat too much sugar and the results will eventually catch up in the form of weight gain and diabetes. If you wish to crush a man’s natural desire, the kind that is accompanied by productive behavior, then give him a unending access to sources of pleasure that aren’t tied to any work.

And this is the true sin of pornography and masturbation. It isn’t so much that seeing the female form and appreciation of those feminine assets is so bad, it is why men get married after all. However, it is when these things are satisfied in a way that does not produce the end that was intended. Sexual activity without relationship or commitment is certainly fun and yet equivalent to empty calories. It doesn’t build anything.

Which leads to the other problem of access and that being diminished returns. In other words, with the replacements, while killing natural drives, one must do more and more to get the same pleasure. No, maybe it isn’t good to enter the world always horned out or starved, that has it’s own problems, but some things are meant to be obtained via the traditional path. Men who always get what they want in life never develop good character.

Which is the paradox. We dream of having our desires satisfied. And yet, even if we had the real deal to indulge ourselves to the max, would we be happy? Was King David content with multiple wives? Did it prevent him from noticing what other men had and acting out in lust? The reality is most of us would be lascivious and bloated, like Harvey Weinstein, if we actually had the power to take shortcuts to our paradise.

We are not made to be removed from the limitations of our environment. But, beyond this, all triumphs are short lived. The point of our natural desires isn’t to ever lead us to contentment. If anything, accomplishment of our ultimate goals may be anticlimactic and a disappointment. That ‘perfect’ girl is going to fart in bed. She’s not going to look dolled up and sexy like the fantasy version of her suitor’s mind.

As a child I wasn’t much different from my son. I would draw my ideal world. And in one of these visions was a bedroom with an automatic pizza making machine and soda fountain. As an adult, I now know that this would be awesome for a week and not too long after that it would be disgusting. The same goes for almost anything when piled up in excess. Value drops with availability, which deprives is of satisfaction.

In the end, a Grand Theft Auto world, or one where we can simply take anything we want and is free of all consequences, would not be wonderful. This is what went wrong with sexual liberation and dismissal of the moral wisdom passed down. No, religious authority doesn’t accomplish the balance without wisdom, but it definitely can give a head start to the wise. We’re not made for heaven—only to strive for it.

Aliens Are Here! Maybe…

Did you hear? A ‘whistleblower’ testified before Congress about aliens and finding non-human remains at crash sites. I can’t really know if this was reliable or someone simply getting their fifteen minutes of fame, but it does seem unlikely to me that beings capable of flying the enormous distances of space would be such poor navigators. I’ll be a skeptic until I can see for myself and make my own determination.

However, in pondering the topic, a friend of mine posted an interesting meme and it is an angle worth exploring. If aliens do exist, according to the insinuation of this image posted, then they are demonic entities and not to be treated as friends. To some this may seem like a missed opportunity, why would we avoid a chance to expand our own horizons? Typical human behavior, right, to meet with violence the things that we don’t understand or defy expectations.

And yet, this seems another case of being directionally correct even if wrong on the details. I mean, there’s a chance that aliens are some kind of creature from another planet and come in peace. However, what if they don’t? What if they, like many traveling to new lands, have colonial ambitions and will destroy or subjugate us if allowed?

It is correct, instinctively, to have zero trust for these new arrivals. Maybe, technically, they are not demons, but they are others and may as well be demons, right?

Tinfoil Hat Time

This is why I’m generally on the fence so far as the MAGA and Q-Anon types. Sure, they vastly oversimplify and often get the details wrong enough to be easily ‘debunked’ by fact-checkers. However, half the problem is usually about the use of semantics and not the substance. Maybe the world isn’t run by a ring of reptilian pedophiles, nevertheless there are many who lack morality, have their secret plots, hidden motivations, and cover-ups. It might not be organized, but this is pervasive enough that it is adequately put in terms of a grand conspiracy.

So far as aliens, and as a devoted speciesist who prefers native life to that which is most certainly extra-terrestrial, does the exact approach we take to ‘othering’ them really matter? They are an other, a true existential threat, and therefore to be regarded as demonic beings. Curiosity could be our undoing and especially when it comes to those things powerful and beyond our own understanding.

So what does the Scripture tell us about this topic?

First, be respectful:

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.
(Jude 1:8‭-‬10 NIV)

Quibbling over what exactly they are is okay, but there is no room for casualness when it comes to aliens or demons. Those coming from other worlds obviously have technology or means better than our own. They can run circles around us. So we would be wise to be cautious and exercise due respect—that is to say rely on God’s power rather than our own strength in these encounters.

Second, we should learn from record history and not make the same mistakes:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
(Genesis 6:4 NIV)

The non-canonical book of Enoch goes into greater detail about this event when beings from another realm came to Earth, shared their advanced knowledge (including that of weapons) and interbred with women. These enhanced hybrid offspring were extremely powerful, they also had insatiable appetites and their enormous consumption eventually led to a destructive rampage. We are told this is why God finally wiped the slate clean with the great flood, where Noah and his family were spared. This is why St Paul writes, in a letter to the Corinthians:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. […] It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
(1 Corinthians 11:7‭, ‬10 NIV)

Women, wear your tinfoil hats. Err, I mean, veils, because there are Watchers, sons of God not named Jesus, and thus it is for this reason you should definitely declare what is the ordained order. Mennonites and Amish are just unwittingly ahead of the game!

Aliens or Angels?

My wife speaks English. However, given that she comes from the Philippines, sometimes her word usage can be different from that of an American. Hanging out with friends and family, for example “bonding” and a “polo” can basically be any shirt with buttons. So truly, if use of language can be this confusing even for us contemporaries, what happens when we expand this “telephone game” over centuries?

It is quite possible that we are reading about what we call aliens in these ancient texts. I mean, the descriptions do seem to match so they not? Those who came to Earth with advanced knowledge and abilities, messed with human genetics through impregnation of women (see: Aliens) and wreaked havoc on the planet before God intervened. There is no way to know if the difference is only semantics or of substance.

It seems very unlikely, given the distances involved, that aliens beings can travel from galaxies far away. It is much more likely that these beings would emerge from a parallel (spiritual) dimension, and perhaps through a portal, and are able to take physical form to interact with us. And, either way, similar to artificial intelligence not sharing our human priorities, I’m doubtful these aliens or angels would really have our best interests in mind if they did come.

Ultimately, for all intents and purposes, they are demons. In other words, those of Orthodox Christian tradition do already know what they really are. And, therefore, we must both exercise great caution and strengthen our faith. If they have returned then widespread destruction may be soon to follow. It is not a reason to be afraid, there is no need to panic, these gods are not greater than the good God who has defended those righteous from the beginning and will never let evil win in the end.

The Difference Between A Car Enthusiast And An EV Fanboy…

Ferrari has decided to stick with internal combustion engines rather than join the crowd. The famed Italian supercar manufacturer is known for its shrieking V8 and V10 engines. And, despite government pressure, will not force electric drivetrains onto their customers. The sound is, after all, a big part of what makes them a Ferrari.

Under the article, there was a comment “a Ferrari that doesn’t win races isn’t a Ferrari” and went on to suggest that the tune would change “when their $600,000 works of art start getting blown away by an electric minivan full of kids, driven by a soccer mom sipping a latte and talking to her mom about her test results, and towing two jet skis.”

If owning a Ferrari was about winning illegal drag races, redlight to redlight, this is a valid point. Obviously, being formidably fast is part of the supercar equation and electric does have a significant torque advantage right off the line. Nobody who spent half a million on a vehicle wants to be dusted by a minivan full of kids.

The van was faster and legend is, in the book of Things That Never Happened, the guy with the McLaren traded it for the modded Honda.

However, the problem with this argument is that there are already muscle cars that will beat a Ferrari in a straight-line race. And many mundane cars can be modified or tuned to at least give a supercar a run for their money. But that’s not the point. Nobody is going to trade their F50 for a Civic with a big turbocharger. Why is that?

First of all, what it takes to win a drag race is completely different from being competitive in the 24 hours of LeMans.

Currently, there is no EV in the world that has the kind of endurance to go full bore (or coil) for as long as a real track car. The Tesla P100DL can only last a lap and a half before it must be pitted due to the batteries overheating. But the main problem is simply that batteries do not store enough energy and take far too long to recharge to be viable in competition.

The huge advantage of petroleum is energy density. This means both extended range and also lightweight. This translates to better driving dynamics, and less demand (or wear) on brakes and tires, which is key to winning races.

And there is no magic wand that will solve these massive drawbacks of EVs either. It’s just how the chemistry and physics work out.

Secondly, most people who drive a Ferrari aren’t racing them nor do they need to own the fastest car on the road. They own the car for the same reason that a person buys a painting rather than a photograph. Sure, the image a cell phone can produce is much more realistic than the artwork, but arguing that this makes a van Gogh worthless is silliness.

Or, more to the point, a true aviation enthusiast isn’t going to turn down a ride in a P-51 Mustang arguing that commercial airliners are fast or that the jet engine made that V12 Merlin obsolete. Sure, the car may have replaced the horse, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who enjoys these beautiful animals is Amish or a Luddite. No, rather they enjoy the experience of riding a horse, being near something with a personality, breathing and majestic.

A pure driving experience is not about only the performance stats on paper. No, it is about way more than that. It is about how it feels.

There’s a reason why Mazda Miatas are a favorite and it had nothing to do with being able to blow the doors off all comers. It was about those intangibles. A combination of size and handling makes a driver’s car.

My Shelby GT-350 isn’t the fastest Mustang on the road. The manual transmission makes it slower than it could be with the latest automatics. But there is just something glorious about the whole experience that was not matched during my test drive of a similarly powered Mustang Mach-E.

Sure, EV fanboys may only care about the 0-60 numbers. But, if that’s all it is about, then why not buy the theoretical future EV minivan that accelerates like a top fuel dragster while pulling jet skis? It’s much more practical than a Ferrari. Why pay a premium for a less capable vehicle?

A car enthusiast knows the answer. They know why the old guy in the neighborhood putters around in their Model T Ford and they also understand why someone restores a vintage Porsche that’s not even a match for a family sedan.

There’s no way to rank fine art. It is all subjective, finesse and balance, what does it for you, those who want to turn everything into some kind of adolescent tool measuring contest don’t get it—they never will.

The End Times — Same As All Times

There are many desperately trying to push back against the march of progress. I’ve seen the Ted Kaczynski’s (aka “the Unibomber”) Manifesto popping up lately because of how his predictions are coming true. Even those at the cutting edge of the current technological revolution, men like Elon Musk, are terrified of the implications of this rapid change.

Things like transhumanism, cashless society, social credit scores, next level automation and artificial intelligence are upon us. The internet, this once free space, that reduced the friction of communication and allowed the masses to bypass the established gatekeepers of information, is now enabling a new generation of tyrants with power that their predecessors couldn’t have even begun to imagine.

There is a feeling of helplessness against this faceless emerging (and present) threat, we know that they work behind the scenes to control the narrative. The NSA, Big Tech corporations, existing institutions, they’re all competing for their place at the top of this new order, often colluding and conspiring when their goals align. To them we’re ants, pawns to be manipulated and moved.

It is inevitable. Removing a few key players may be a speed bump. However, nothing short of an asteroid hitting the planet and mass extinction will stop this transition. To resist is to be like the Luddites who thought destroying a few industrial looms would preserve their trade. Their movement was destined to be steamrolled by the invisible hand of market realities. It would be easier to stop a freight train by standing in it’s path than to stop this.

That is what the conspiracy theorists and end time prognosticators get most wrong, they see this wind of change as being directed by a particular group of people, a few elites and celebrities, when it is truly a spirit of our time that even they themselves are participating in. I mean, how many posts do you need to read on Facebook decrying what it does to hijack our minds before the universe explodes because of the massive irony? We can’t help ourselves.

Even the Amish, who are way ahead of the curve as far as identifying the social danger of technology, cannot resist that sirens song and love their smart phones as much as anyone else. And they’re the experts at banning technology they’ve decided is bad for their communities and way of life. If they cannot collectively stop this influence, with their strong religious tradition, what chance do we have to hold back this flood of change?

Still some delude themselves, they believe they’re going to run into the hills and escape this onslaught. I’m thinking of the Rod Dreher types who believe that they will somehow be able to remove themselves, this isn’t the Eastern Roman Empire we’re dealing with. There is no place to hide, no place on this planet out of reach, maybe you’ll fall through the cracks or fly beneath the radar and yet I doubt it.

What we are seeing is the merger of something extremely old with some brand new means. There have always been those with an insatiable lust for power and control, those like the men of Sodom who believed that they should have access to Lot’s angelic guests. It will never be enough for them to rule their own domain. They will use the new technology to search out anyone who would resist them. They get off on your resistance and now have new tools.

The thing about the Biblical antichrist is that it is first and foremost a spirit. You can’t keep it out by walls or physical distance, we can see the manifestations, but we do not battle against flesh and blood. No, it is a war with isms, systems that deny Christ and put try to order the world without God. This always comes in such a glowing colorful and exciting form, but under this cover it is the same perversion of beauty and love.

The world isn’t ever going back to that of our childhood or parents and grandparents. For better or worse, the only constant in life is change. Yes, the pace now seems greater than ever, we are certainly finding ourselves with fewer places to hide. The surveillance state has never been stronger, privacy is a thing of the past, the new tools we use too complicated for most of us to understand and only give us an illusion of control.

Alas, all the things we face today are new forms of the same evils that have existed from the beginning of civilization. The only difference is that now it is on a global scale, with more sophisticated means and ability for centralized administration. The fake news, propaganda and misinformation is more subtle and convincing than ever. It all comes at us so fast anymore. It is easy to become disillusioned and demoralized, but we can’t let the giants defeat us.

There has always been an ebb and flow, the rise and fall of empires and epochs. The most cunning have always found ways to consolidate power and exercise control over the masses through various means. The times we live in could easily be compared to the “bread and circuses” of the Roman Empire. Now we have Netflix and the welfare state, enough entertainment and ease to keep us subdued. Maybe this is the time when the types who desire complete supremacy finally win?

We must pick our battles. There is probably not much you are going to do against the weight of the wealthiest most calculated and powerful of our time. What will be will be. Freedom and equal rights have pretty much always been a fantasy to keep us from being trouble to the elites. Most of us are slaves via debt. Step out of line, be the slightest threat to their rule, and they’ll put you in your place.

	Adriana McAtee on A Conservative Mennonite and F…
	Joel on By Way of Deception
	Michael on By Way of Deception
	Joel on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	radre4m on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…