The impending catastrophe, part one

This one goes out to the dystopians. Who are not the ones I love.

An underlying assumption, if I can put it that way, behind everything I have been saying is the reality of the so-called ‘Zoo hypothesis’ – that’s to say this galactic sector is teeming with intelligent, spacefaring civilisations. Likewise, the intimately related ‘Fermi paradox’, which is a clear corollary of the zoo hypothesis. The Fermi paradox simply puts the question, if the zoo hypothesis is true then where are all the aliens? Why can’t we see them and why do we not have any evidence about them?

Well, leaving aside the obvious ‘you’re not looking in the right place (or time – ancient aliens)’ and ‘why do you (take note, SETI) assume the aliens think like you do?’, I get the impression the most favoured answer to the paradox is the so-called ‘prime directive’ as expressed in Star Trek. Namely ‘no interference in pre-spacefaring civilisations’.

A non-interference policy would be catastrophic. It was non-interference which led to the Ancient War. There was nothing to stop dystopians from developing advanced technology and interstellar colonialist empires. I’m not going to delve into the long list of hideous crimes perpetrated by the current American empire, but anyone who knows even the slightest about that will understand what I’m saying here – if the people controlling that American empire were to gain advanced technology then genocidal, exploitative colonialism would be the result.

The real prime directive, conceived whilst that war was still ongoing (it’s what eventually won the day and ended it) and then made permanent in the aftermath of that war, is the opposite – sufficient intervention or interference in pre-spacefaring civilisations to prevent them from becoming a threat and reigniting the Ancient War. It’s that simple.

Some of you might argue ‘if this is so, then how have you allowed this dystopian American empire to flourish?’. That’s an acceptable question. Many people from the Old Country (Atlantis) would’ve asked the same thing towards the end.

The answer is sensitivity and the necessity of a species to learn and evolve. You can’t simply come down and tell people how to behave. They have to learn it themselves. Sometimes, that means they have to suffer, in order to reinforce their empathy and desire to be good. It strengthens their immune system (your Nietzsche would understand, I’m sure). It’s the same philosophical question as ‘why does God allow evil?’. Evolution, is the explanation.

In other words, interventions have to be well thought out and considerate of the emotions of the species in question. The trick is to do the minimum necessary. Some species hardly need any interference whatsoever. One can simply visit them in your true form at a time when their first civilisations emerge, perhaps before the invention of writing, knowing that this story will pass down into what could be called ‘myth’, but then ‘re-examined’ when they achieve advanced technology and realise that space travel is possible, at which point they talk about ‘ancient aliens’ and remember that they are not alone. Their philosophers then draw the appropriate – non-fearful – conclusions, and everything is fine. They construct their first interstellar ship, visit their nearest stellar neighbour and are welcomed into the galactic family.

Other civilisations, however – the ones governed by fear and hierarchies – require more substantial intervention. And yes, sometimes this has to be drastic. Not necessarily an extinction level event, but ‘almost’. An asteroid impact perhaps, a planetary axis tilt, a great flood – that kind of thing. A bioweapon can also suffice. With regards to this latter, the idea of overpopulation is interesting when considering the fates of Mu and Atlantis. Apparently there were some 64 million inhabitants of Mu when it vanished beneath the waves (approximately 15,000 years or so ago, if I recall – don’t quote me on that one, however!). I don’t know what the population of Atlantis was when the final flood came, but I would not be surprised if it was similar or even higher. Most ancient historians agree that the human population of the world during the ice age (say, around 25,000 years ago), was little more than 1 million – clearly not overpopulation and a perfectly tolerable number. Obviously most orthodox ancient historians discount Mu and Atlantis as myths. Their assumption here is the so-called steady state (or structuralist, even) view of history. That’s to say that it follows a clear, linear developmental path. When something is invented, it’s not un-invented or forgotten, in other words. They would balk at the idea of advanced human civilisations pre-dating, say, 5,000 years ago. Perhaps that’s just another expression of the Fermi paradox fallacy – they don’t believe it because they haven’t found any evidence (or can’t see it, rather).

I should offer a disclaimer here, by the way, which is that I am no expert at all on Mu or Atlantis, and I don’t believe I ever visited either of those places. Other Eyani and Ishnaans did, however, as you might expect, but that wasn’t really my remit. That’s another story, though.

I’m sure a lot of you can see where I’m going with this particular diatribe.

You only need to look around at your world to see how depraved and corrupted and dystopian it has become. If you didn’t have scary technology on the horizon it wouldn’t be so much of a problem, because civilisations come and go and this corrosion wouldn’t last forever. Certainly not long enough to cause any concern, anyway.

One other, somewhat ridiculous answer posited to the Fermi paradox is that advanced civilisations end up destroying themselves. Speak for yourselves! How anthropocentric and stupid. Normal human beings would not destroy themselves or their environment. The dystopians – the so-called 1 percent, however…

Not every species ends up depraved, please note.

Your dystopians, however, are a different kettle of nix. They are quite aware of the possibility of self-destruction and will take appropriate measures to avert it. If they were to decide to initiate a nuclear world war three then they would make survival preparations beforehand, and take really quite a long time to plan the whole thing with their own survival in mind.

Likewise, they are perfectly aware that there is no impending ‘climate catastrophe’. A slight change, sure, in the grand deep-time scheme of things, but hardly an extinction level event. Think about it this way – if you discovered an exoplanet that was virtually identical to this one except it had, say, 600 ppm carbon dioxide you would not say it’s uninhabitable, would you? You are more likely to say it’s a tropical paradise. Remember also that when my species first arrived here on Danuih the carbon dioxide levels were three times higher than they are today, the temperatures correspondingly so too. We didn’t complain! Far from it! We loved it!

Perhaps what I’m saying here is that to ascribe ‘incompetence’ to the dystopians is foolish in the extreme. These people are extremely clever, as it happens. They have a cunning intelligence and they always put a huge amount of thought and effort into their major operations and long-term strategies. You should never underestimate them in that regard.

This kind of intelligence doesn’t, naturally, preclude their being downright evil, however. The reasons why they are ‘evil’ are manifold, of course, but I don’t need to go into them here.

So then, what has become clear in my observations is that there really is nothing, now, which can prevent the dystopians from establishing their totalitarian control. They have the technology necessary to do it, control over the flow of information (the media, social media, the Internet etc.), and they have proven recently that they know exactly what they are doing and they have sufficient (if not total) control over world events.

Democratic elections, for example, which can be rigged on a massive scale, e.g. Britain 2019. That election, as it happens, is a perfect exemplar and epitome of what they do and their overall strategy regarding globalism and geopolitics. The American empire’s foreign policy is essentially ‘prevent socialism’. They use the CIA covertly, and the IMF and World Bank overtly, to accomplish this – IMF loans for example are always accompanied by the condition that the country in question must inflict privatisation and austerity on their population. The dystopians are perfectly well aware that ‘capitalism’ is not a beneficial economic policy – it’s specifically not intended to be economically beneficial – it is a social policy, designed only to maintain the privilege of the rich (i.e. them), keep the poor in their place (i.e. poor) and prevent the so-called middle classes (small and medium-sized business owners) from getting ideas above their station and becoming anything more than a minor millionaire (i.e. therefore not a threat, whilst deceived by ‘aspiration’ – the system seems to work for them, so their selfishness keeps them voting for it).

The reason the dystopians are terrified of socialism is because they know it’s a superior system (for the 99 percent). They are also intensely aware of the so-called domino effect. What you might call the ‘seeing is believing’ effect. If a developed country like Britain, for example, were to go completely liberal socialist then so would the rest of Europe – all those Europeans would see it working in Britain and vote for the same thing in their own countries. Thus, the dystopians (America) have to stop it. It’s that simple.

They also control the United Nations, of course. In the sense of preventing the UN from doing what it should be doing, which is making the world a better place. One obvious solution the UN could – or rather, should – do is to take control over the IMF and World Bank, merge it into one global bank with the power to create money in any currency it likes and then just give the money to countries who need it – not in the form of loans with conditions.

In terms of war and conflict, whilst America is impervious to UN resolutions or a threat of sanctions, it not only uses the UN to inflict such things on its socialist-minded enemies but also to prevent such things from being enacted on its allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia being the two most obvious).

If the United Nations had any power to make the world a better place then it would declare America an international pariah state and inflict numerous resolutions, conditions and sanctions on it. The fact that it doesn’t should tell you everything you need to know.

For as I say, the dystopians have proven beyond reasonable doubt in recent years that they cannot be stopped.

At least by humans, that is…