The AntiChrist

Maybe it’s because I watched The Omen at way too young an age, or maybe it’s because the Book of Revelation’s “mark of the beast” allegory is playing out too literally for my tastes, but having already written about the Second Coming, it only follows I should speculate as to its counterpart.

As I mentioned in The Second Coming, it’s dangerous to take the myths from our ancestors too literally. They used the symbols of their times, and we should be careful not to confuse the mental maps they had of their world with reality itself. That said, we should also not be dismissive — Mozart didn’t have fancy music editing software, but his genius using the modalities of the time was real. To the extent our forebears offered us their wisdom about the nature of man and forces within him we should endeavor to understand it. The technology and the symbols may have changed, but our essential nature is ever the same.

Just as the second coming of Christ would free man from tyranny, the Antichrist would be its imposition. And just as I speculated that Jesus might not return in the form of a person, it’s likely neither would his counterpart. But if Satoshi, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, can be the face, so to speak, representing the movement toward freedom and God, who and what would represent its antithesis? Let’s speculate.

It would have to be someone charismatic, a person the multitudes would want to follow and in whom to look for reassurance. That eliminates villains du jour like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and Vladimir Putin. If that’s who Satan is sending, he’s not sending his best. What about Donald Trump? More charismatic, much more popular appeal. He’s a better choice than the first group, but while street-smart, he lacks refined intelligence and is too despised by wide swaths of the population. He’s also probably too old.

For a while, I would have said Barack Obama was the best candidate, and even some hard-core right wingers agreed (it’s hilarious that this claim was actually fact-checked! — you can’t fact-check whether someone is the Antichrist!) Obama was relatively young, vital enough, popular, charismatic and intelligent. But he’s faded from view the last few years and has been a surprisingly inconsequential former president.

That leaves one person of whom I can think with the qualities and societal position to fill the role. Regrettably it’s someone I like, but of course I would like the Antichrist! If he weren’t likable he wouldn’t be the Antichrist.

That person is Elon Musk.

Musk is the richest person in the world, among the most followed on Twitter, has a borderline worshipful fanbase and big plans for improving humanity. Musk is young enough, he’s probably a genius and considering a private takeover of arguably the world’s most important communications network. He’s also a big player in satellites, energy, transportation and internet provision.

Musk says lots of sensible things with which I agree about free speech and rights. He is the perfect foil to the out-of-central-casting Schwab supervillain. As Edward Dowd speculated:

But, you might object, if Musk is the foil to Schwab’s terrible ideas, isn’t that good for humanity? How could the Antichrist be for free speech, renewable energy, population expansion? Again, of course, the Antichrist is going to have good, sensible ideas! But as Marshall McLuhan said, “The medium is the message.”

Or, more aptly, the top-down messianic complex is the message.

Musk has long discussed saving humanity via expansion into space and sustainable energy. But in order to save humanity, one must exert some control over it. While Musk’s Twitter takeover from the ineffectual woke scolds is getting most of the press, this is also going on:

Klaus Schwab’s pitch to own nothing and eat bugs is weak, but Musk, via brain implant, could potentially create a more satisfying virtual experience than most could hope to achieve in reality. And what could be more tantamount to complete control than letting someone else get the keys to the very organ of perception itself?

Well don’t get the implant then. Just get in your Tesla and drive away. But electric cars don’t work that way — they are attached to the grid, trackable and capable of being shut down remotely. And that’s before we consider driverless cars in which there would be even less privacy and autonomy. Moreover, Teslas track the driver’s movements already to an extent combustion-engine cars do not, ostensibly to inform the developing AI, but uses for technology evolve over time — sending email and paying bills over the internet was commonplace in 2000, but now people are micro-tracked by Facebook and Google.

One could object that Musk has, to-date, used his influence for good. But that makes it no less dangerous to entrust him with so much power: J.R.R. Tolkien understood this clearly:

“You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?”

“No!” cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. “With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.” His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. “Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.”

– The Lord of the Rings

Beyond Neuralink, Musk also seems to have a strong utilitarian bent:

In this paper Nick Bostrom makes the case that delaying technological advancement could cost humanity astronomical amounts of well-being because every moment we delay, stars are burning out, useful energy is being sucked into black holes, irreversible entropy is happening apace, depriving us of future potential. Bostrom translates it into potential human lives lost (or more aptly, never having been born) on account of this permanent loss.

While Bostrom’s framework seems benign — who is against collective human happiness in the form of more worthwhile lives? — it’s actually a form of utilitarianism that tries to sum the totality of human happiness over the entire species rather than to consider, as Immanuel Kant would, each individual as an end in himself. This viewing of the collective good as the optimal outcome has been used to justify many of history’s worst atrocities. To create a master race, to make sure everyone gets the same amount, to protect the world from covid, we must do whatever it takes!

If, per Bostrom’s math, one harnessed black hole were worth quadrillions of lives, it would, for example, seem an easy call to sacrifice a bunch of selfish losers on earth who stood in the way of creating the technology for doing so. Utilitarianism, ironically, winds up failing miserably by its own metric because (a) it can so easily be manipulated by whoever is maintaining the “greater good” spread sheet, which just happens to coincide with one’s ambitions; and (b) because it’s absurd to think you can calculate aggregate good for octillions of lives so far into an unknowable future. As such, while Musk’s pitch is more persuasive than Schwab’s or Gates’, it’s ultimately part of the same dangerous philosophy which is: “Let me optimize for total human happiness on your behalf.”

Contrast Musk’s top-down humanity-saving endeavors with Bitcoin which is purely opt-in, works with simple incentives and imposes no value judgments on its users. It’s a truth-recording clock, impervious to fraud and cooption by the powerful. No matter how wealthy or powerful a person is, he cannot control the network or get treated with special privileges. Bitcoin’s finite supply means governments cannot print more of it, cannot finance unpopular wars or massive giveaways to the military and pharmaceutical industrial complexes. Instead of trusting any particular powerful person (the president, Elon Musk, Bill Gates) to be good, it simply removes the incentives toward and reduces the capacity for evil.

The supreme good is like water, which nourishes all things without trying to. It is content with the low places that people disdain. Thus it is like the Tao.

From the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tse — translated by Stephen Mitchell)

We simply need the right conditions, the proper axioms on which to build. Just as the US Constitution created the framework for the most prosperous society in the history of the world, bitcoin will provide the axioms for peace, the harnessing of stranded energy and the low-time preference required for a more prosperous future.

But it won’t be the future brought to you by Elon Musk, and ultimately I foresee a clash between the two. One tell is his otherwise inexplicable promotion of Dogecoin as a possible currency for Tesla purchases. Dogecoin was literally a joke from its creator and of course has none of the security, decentralization or censorship resistance of bitcoin. Musk is too smart not to know that — he put a couple billion dollars of Tesla’s balance sheet in bitcoin already and almost certainly understands the value proposition. That he still cites Doge seriously would be a clever way to muddy the waters about what bitcoin is vs what blockchain-based “crypto” is. And of course the Antichrist would avail himself of bitcoin, if only to obfuscate his real intentions and also to be able to crash the price by selling, if necessary, at an opportune time.

The Klaus Schwab-Bill Gates-WEF set have already lost. They are widely despised, central banks are flailing, once-trusted institutions like the legacy media, major science and medical journals, the WHO, CDC and FDA are hemorrhaging influence. People are unhappy and looking for someone or something to trust. Elon Musk could fill that void, and if he does, he will be The Final Boss, the last false idol that needs to be discarded before humanity can, through its own efforts, enjoy a new era of prosperity, the Second Coming, so to speak.

I actually suspect Musk is genuine in his desire to help humanity via his vision and am pretty sure he doesn’t have 666 embedded in his scalp — in any case even Damian in The Omen neither knew who he was nor wanted to be the Antichrist! But the most dangerous people for humanity are those with the biggest plans for it.

Or put more succinctly: