Last night my wife and I watched the SciFi movie, Ghost in the Shell (2017) as I wanted to see what message Hollywood's overlords were trying to convey to the public.

The setting is the future where there is lots of high tech and where cyber-enhancement of humans is common place. Major Motoko Kusanagi (played by Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human supposedly saved from a terrible terrorist attack, whose brain is extracted and placed in a machine, cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people's minds and control them, Major Kusanagi is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major Kusanagi discovers that she has been lied to: her life was not saved, it was stolen. She will stop at nothing to recover her past, find out who did this to her and stop them before they do it to others.

Naturally I would never want to live in such a horrid, secular, impersonal and violent cyber world where most of what 'exists' is cyber illusion, not that I think that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be possible in quite the way depicted in the movie. I don't believe you could transplant a brain into a machine (assuming that's even technically possible) and still be left with a 'human' because human identity and character is resident in the spirit (psyche aside). The bottom line is whether Yahweh would permit a man's brain to be transplanted into an android machine and allow his spirit to remain with him.

There are, of course, a number of philosophical underpinnings in the movie, one of which, paraphrasing, was, "you are not your memories - you are what you do" which, if you think about it, could be applied to a 100 per cent machine too. The truth is we are both our memories and our doings...and a lot more. We may make choices that redefine our character that we cannot (because of various handicaps, for example) put into action. As far as Yahweh is concerned, they 'count', though they would not 'count' if they could, and should, be put into action in concrete ways (like helping homeless people, for example) but they refused even though they had every opportunity. Works definitely are important but not all works are possible, as the dying thief on the cross brought to salvation quickly discovered.

Nevertheless, AI is already a reality and there is no doubt the élites want to immortalise themselves by transferring their essences to android machines if they can't keep themselves biologically live beyond the normal four-score-and-ten. (They commonly have multiple heart-transplants so many are living around 100 now). There are already, on s small scale, artificial electronic devices that interface with the body to improve hearing, sight, speech and keep hearts going. More and more artificial devices are being invented. One of the big goals of the AI people is to enhance human brain functioning by downloading 'software' into it and so circumvent a number of learning processes, like learning a language instantly. There is no doubt science will push as far as it can go. How far it will manage to do that remains to be seen. Whatever advantages they may give to us as human beings (in the movie one character was given new eyes that enabled him to see UV, X-ray, etc.), there will be major downsides too, one of which will eventually be the complete loss of privacy and the ability by others controlling us to also delete memories, a motif that's appearing in a number of movies currently.

What's dangerous - though predictable - for those who know how the deep state works, is the way society is being conditioned to accept AI. How do the élites persuade people to 'get past' their revulsion against what is a very unnatural tinkering of a divine creation, the human body? By the well-tried and completely successful Hegellian dialectic method of conflict resolution.

Put simply, if (for example) a socialist wants to move society away from conservatism by non-violent means, a hugely effectual option is open to him (and one which has been used consistently over the last century) What he does not do is encourage a debate between conservatism and socialism but instead creates an artificial debate by posing two positions - one 'moderate' and one 'radical', both of which point in the direction of complete socialism and away from capitalism - and then persuades the public to pick sides. The Hegellian knows that people don't like large, sudden changes, so what he will do is portray the new 'moderate' position as 'good' (even though it's against what the public accepts and likes) and the radical position as 'bad'. It's the typical 'good cop'/'bad cop' situation. Mr Joe Public, wanting to be seen as 'good' and 'moderate', will choose the 'moderate' social democratic position even though he is himself a conservative...or was. He has been manipulated.

Having persuaded the public to accept the moderate (good cop) position, and after a period of 'settling in' with the new reality (which has moved away from conservative values, family values, Christian values, or whatever the opponent wants to steer society away from), the powers-that-be then introduce a new dialectic (at the next election). What was once 'moderate' is then labelled as 'conservative' and 'bad' and in its place two new opposites are introduced which Joe Public must choose between - a new 'moderate' position (what previously was the radical position) and a new 'radical' position (even more radical than before). By this means the deep state has moved society away from traditional conservative Christian values towards communism. In the West - in Europe in particular - we still have 'conservative' and 'socialist' parties but now they're all socialist! The conservative parties are progressively socialised and are little different from the socialist parties who are the apparent opposite numbers. But people vote tribally. So when the 'conservative' parties introduce (deliberately) more socialism to attract the socialist vote, the socialist parties often move more to the left. Moderate socialists, having a gut reaction to the word 'conservative', then vote against the moderate socialists for the more radical socialists. Or things can be completelty flipped on its head, as happened in the UK. It can be very confusing for those who don't understand the game. (The writings of Peter Hitchens beautiful expose this dangerous charade). Now there is really no conservative opposition in Europe and when conservative parties arise, they are immediatelty demonised by the left and called 'extremist' or 'fascist'. So people now think that 'conservative parties' are moderate socialist ones when in fact they are now branded as 'fascism' of the 'extreeme right', neither of which are true.

Part of the confusion is in the use of labels since fascism/nazism is, in fact, a form of radical socialism...national socialism, to be exact. The 'good cop'/'bad cop' Hegellian dialectic was used in the great 'struggle' between 'nazism' and 'communism' in World War 2 with communism coming out as the 'good guy' in the eyes of many because of the 'badness' of the nazis. The truth is, they were both equally bad.

I digress to define terms a little bit to that the movie-goer can understand how he is being subtly brainwashed using Hegellian dialectical method. In the movie, practically everyone is a partially cyber-modified human being. The dialectic is between those who are partially modified and those, like the star, who are almost completely modified. The girl was abducted and forced to be this new android species, and that is vigorously opposed as amoral in the movie but one is left with the belief that her kind is, after all, where humankind is evolving, and that it would be better that everyone went that way - it was suggested that it was inevitable. A token representation of complete humans is left, represented by the star's mother, but she is clearly 'old world' who will likely completely disappear.

The choice is simple, and a very old one first offered in the Garden of Eden. It's a choice betweeen being a weak human being and a powerful demi-god:

• 1. Mortal human being -, weak, disease-prone, not as clever or able as an android; or
• 2. A virtual immortal god - super-human abilities, who has no privacy and ultimately no will and no ability to relate as a full human being.

The movie writers did want the viewer to come away with the idea that relationships between partially cyber-modified humans and those almost completely modified were impossible, but in the story it soon became clear that such would not be possible in the fullest sense. The writers did admit that things like touch, love-making and the like would be impossible. But even that concession is not the point - those concessions were made simply to keep us 'believeing' that 'creator' of this alternative world is humane and credible. The point is to acclimatise us to AI and human-machine hybrids and to simply accept that this brave new utopian world is inevitable - just like the 'inevitability' of coming udner the devil's full control once he has got one foot through your door.

Of course, it isn't. It depends on what we choose. In the movie there was a 'lawless' area in town where fully human beings lived in the shadows as 'bandists', who were abducted for cyber experimentation. There are, to be sure, certain moral dilemmas in even minimal cyber-enhancement. Pacemakers and artificial hearts are standard fare these days though there is now the danger that anything electronic can be hacked and turned off or converted into lethal weapons. Some kind of AI world depicted in the movie is coming and believers need to know how to deal with it, both for themselves as well as for creatures who may be more machine than human.

Our main problem is not with always science, I believe (though I have major issues with genetic modification, for example), but with the political powers that use it. From the perspective of agency, people are free to choose what they want to become, provided they are informed rightly. But then the élites always will blur the truth, offering enough to entice but rarely saying much about the dangers, or otherwise trivialising them. We saw in the last American Presidential Election how communism was presented with a loving face (Bernie Sanders & Co.), though the media neglected to mention the total failure and abuses of both socialism and communism historically. But the élites know people don't learn from their mistakes because most can't handle a three-way choice - they prefer to be confronted with just two, which makes them liable for manipulation using the Hegellian dialectic (which is central to Marxism).