Saturday, 30 April 2016
Monday, 25 April 2016
Thursday, 21 April 2016
The film Live, Die, Repeat, set in an apocalyptic near future, where an alien race has invaded the earth and humanity is fighting back, can be interpreted as a film supporting multiverse theory.
The main character, played by Tom Cruise, after coming into contact with a special alien, gains the power to 'reset the day', that is to say, when he dies on the battlefield or elsewhere he wakes up at the same point a day earlier.
This enables him to learn from his mistakes, find new ways to defeat the enemy, to train hard, knowing full well that each time he dies he is given another chance to try again, simply having to modify his behaviour somewhat in the repeating condition he finds himself in on waking up and getting to know all the variables of the particular day he constantly 'resets' to.
It dawned on me, however, that although the main character resets the day and wakes up at the exact same point in the near past each time he dies, others around him carry on with their lives or die and do not go back in time with him.
That is to say, the power Tom Cruise has each time he dies and wakes up is to enter a new universe, identical in form and condition to the previous one, but with the memory of all his previous incarnations.
Thus in countless universes, Tom Cruise dies, the alien race wins the war and that is the end of the story. But in one universe out of thousands, given the amount of deaths he has undergone, Tom Cruise successfully uses his power to defeat the enemy and everyone lives happily ever after.
Thus the film presents a bleak picture as it shows that in one case out of thousands the enemy is defeated, but in all the other universe scenarios the enemy is victorious.
Tuesday, 19 April 2016
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma GoldmanThe anarchist view of voting is that it signals consent to governmental hierarchy and confers legitimacy on it. By voting you are giving your consent to someone you usually do not know to represent your person and your interests in the realm of state government.
Voting is the main pillar in the fallacy of political representation, where a group of people you have nothing to do with are said to represent the common will - la volonté générale as Rousseau put it - through their election victory and therefore have carte blanche to do as they please, claiming to be acting on behalf of the 'people'.
This belief is insane. Why would politicians act in favour of the public interest when they have been given the power by voters to line their own pockets at the expense of the public? An election is essentially choosing one master over another and will never threaten, quite the opposite, the status quo of the social hierarchy - it is still true to say as did the left of the nineteenth century that Government represents the interests and instrument of the ruling class. If voting was a threat to the established order then, of course, they would make it illegal very quickly.
"If you don't vote, you have every reason to complain." - George Carlin
Contrary to the platitude that if you don't vote you can't complain it is much more true to say as did the comic George Carlin that if you don't vote you have every reason to complain for you never gave your consent to be represented and governed by electing a group of people into office. Everything they do to you is an immoral imposition you never gave your consent to and Government is then revealed to be the immoral coercive force that it is, based on violence (including the violence of taxation and police intrusion). Supposing that one day there was a 0 turnout to an election, the Government would lose its phoney 'democratic' legitimacy and would then resort to forcing people to vote under threat of a penalty. Voting keeps the system in place and confers legitimacy on the immorality that is the State.