Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Going back in time to kill Verlensky as an infant

Going back in time to kill Verlensky as an infant

Last updated on: November 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm by Fred Clark

Going back in time to kill Verlensky as an infant 2015-11-16T13:53:05-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Just as I was about to cross the street to avoid him, I did what one should never do and made eye contact with the angry screaming man. I’d seen him shaking his fists at one of those centuries-old row houses, and had just taken out my earphones to catch what he was shouting, something like “It’s supposed to be right here!”

His demeanor changed as he noticed me looking at him. He slumped his shoulders and suddenly looked more exhausted than angry. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I’m sorry. I’m just … there’s somewhere I need to be and I don’t know where it’s gone.”

He no longer seemed dangerous or threatening, simply confused. Now I just felt sorry for him. I wasn’t sure what sort of episode this man was having, but I guessed this would end how it usually did, with him giving some long story involving a desperate need for bus fare and me giving him whatever cash I could spare and maybe a referral to the folks at 802.

“You’re on Delancey Place,” I said. “Where is it you’re trying to go?”

“So here it’s not on Delancey. Delancey is here, but it is not.” He glanced around the street and then back at me. “This gets a bit, ah, complicated. I need to find my office.”

“There’s also Delancey Street …” I started, but he interrupted, handing me a business card. “The Contingency Trust,” it said, and below that “Philadelphia. New York. Boston.” It didn’t offer any address or phone number. “I’m sorry,” I said. “I’ve never heard of this.”

“I expect not,” he said. “We like to keep, ah, quiet. You’d know it as something like a law firm, perhaps, maybe a brokerage or a charitable foundation?”

I shrugged apologetically. “Sorry, I don’t …”

“No, no. That’s fine. That’s good. Probably good news, that.” Then he stepped closer, inspecting my face. “But tell me, what do you know about Verlensky?”

“Who?” I started to say, but he kept going. “You have no idea who Verlensky was, do you? Never even heard of him. The name Verlensky means nothing to you.”

“I …” I shrugged again, bewildered, my voice trailing off. He, smiled triumphantly, seeming delighted by my confusion.

“We did that,” he said. “We rid your world of Verlensky. We saved millions of lives. That’s good, yes? Saving lives, stopping the war, preventing a genocide before it ever began? Whatever else we may have done, we did that.

“But no, that’s not the question,” he continued, and his short burst of defiant pride quickly evaporated. He closed his eyes, pressing his fingertips into them, looking utterly defeated — as though he’d had this conversation many, many times before. “The question is, if you don’t know who Verlensky is, then who is your Verlensky?”

“I’m sorry,” I said, trying not to upset him further. “I’m not sure what you …”

“Who is Verlensky in your world? The second world war!” he shouted. “Did you have one or not?”

“Yes! Of course!” I was raising my voice too, now, shouting back at him without realizing it. The man’s face sagged and his knees buckled. He collapsed to the brick sidewalk, staring at the ground from his knees like a supplicant at prayer.

For a long, agonizing minute neither of us said anything. I thought of calling 9-1-1, trying to get him some help, but I couldn’t imagine what to tell them. And then he looked up at me, calm again.

“It didn’t work,” he said, extending a hand up to me. I grabbed his hand and helped him to his feet. “We have failed, again, but we can fix this. We can try again. We must. Tell me, is the main branch of the library still open here?”

This wasn’t making any more sense, but I told him it was, and that it wasn’t far.

“Excellent,” he said, smiling for the first time. “We’ll start there, locate the Trust, and try again. Where are my manners?” He reached out to shake my hand. “I am Dr. Francis Lester,” he said, gripping my hand firmly in both of his. “And you are going to help me stop a war.”

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Aaaand scene. That’s all I’ve got so far. It’s just a first draft, of course, and not really the sort of thing I do. But, still, I think I like where it’s going.

The idea of the Contingency Trust, in particular, intrigues me as something worth exploring. Let’s assume that, somehow, one does have a time machine and that one plans to use it to travel back in time to kill Hitler. Doing so would change the past and, thereby, change whatever present it was you’d planned on returning to.

Returning to the present wouldn’t be optional. It would be the only way you could know if you’d suceeded — if killing Hitler had worked. But this return would be complicated. You would need a home office of some kind, an institutional anchor of sorts designed to endure regardless of all the variable contingencies that would be bound to occur after you’d altered the past. This couldn’t simply be The Committee to Go Back in Time to Kill Hitler, because if the mission succeeded, then such a committee would be among the many things that ceased to exist in any future timeline subsequent to that success.

What you would need, then, apart from the time machine itself (that’s the easy part, really) would be some kind of institutional trust, an entity designed to be legally and financially sustainable throughout time or even throughout times. Whatever sort of staff this agency would employ — physicists, historians, lawyers? — would have to be prepared to receive reports from field agents that they would be unable to comprehend. They would need to be prepared for someone like Lester to arrive, informing them that he had succeeded in going back in time to kill the infant Verlensky, even though his success would mean that they had no idea who Verlensky was and no memory of having sent him to carry out this lethal mission, perhaps just weeks or days or moments before.

And that, of course, brings us back to the inevitable questions such stories always raise about the nature of time travel. Among those questions is the matter of whether we’re dealing with an infinite series of variations in a single timestream or whether we’re dealing with an infinite number of separate timestreams and timelines — an infinite number of alternate realities, with new realities and new timelines created by the very act of traveling into and changing the past.

I think I lean toward the latter, even if I’m not entirely sure that distinction is quite as meaningful as it might at first seem. From that point of view, of course, the whole Go Back in Time to Kill Hitler scheme starts to look more dubious.

But all of this — my story above and all such questions about the nature of time travel — is beside the point. None of that really has to do with the recent strange wave of discussion about whether or not we should Go Back in Time to Kill Hitler if we thought we could.

That discussion really doesn’t have anything to do with the mechanics and contingencies of time travel. It’s only really about the mechanics and contingencies of killing. The question is, really, do you think you could fix anything by killing the right people? Or maybe even do you think we could fix everything by killing the right people?

And that question involves a whole other sort of trust in contingency and a whole universe of other assumptions about our capacity to account for an infinite number of incalculable variables.

That’s why I liked Stephen Colbert’s response to the question about going back in time to kill baby Hitler:

I also like Atrios’ response. Even though he never even mentions the whole killing baby Hitler thing here, he’s addressing the same question:

As always the point is that there are bad and violent people out there in the world, so if we’re not going to blow them up and arm everybody who might be inclined to blow them up, also, too, then you got nothing, do you, hippie? …

As for what the hippies would do? Probably not quite so much blowing up. Might not work, but the blowing up isn’t working too well either.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 15, 2015

Sunday WTF?

Next Post

November 16, 2015 Proximity, affinity, and mutuality

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What special power did Joseph have?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Building altars Interpreting dreams Fighting giants Writing scrolls