As we can see on the blog, the countdown for the #3DD has not yet arrived. Still, it is my firm belief that the #ThreeDaysOfDarkness will come to pass, as seen by #AloisIrlmaier.
It is a good idea however, to follow Bruce Beach @brucebeach1 @dawnsayer
And Alois Irlmaier @AloisIrlmaier
And Antonia Lau @antonialau
And Suspicious Observer @
You cannot win a nuclear war
When asking whether there will be a nuclear war, the thought occurs that it might be worse to have no nuclear war at all.
But how could not having one be worse than having one?
What then would happen if one was to make that choice?
What would happen to Volunteers who disregard the warning:
Get out of the city.
Get out of the city.
Get out of the city.
Even if you wanted to help.
For those fortunate enough to be in a city that did not suffer a nuclear weapons attack the question may arise on how to go on living after such events have occurred.
A blueprint for what can be done to make the story of the woman more attainable. The woman, taking her child to the grocer, meeting another woman on the road and chatting as the kids interact nearby,
The point is that the first points of needs of farmers and other survivors are currently met:
1. Safety
2. Shelter
3. Water -> but the story does not mention running tap water
4. Food
5. Heat -> but the story says nothing about electric central heating
This is just an excerpt of what everyone can read in his spare time.
And whoever does so becomes more knowledgeable for the case the unthinkable happens.
While location matters, it might be a great deal better where you are then elsewhere.
There might be people who get a place to go.
In Ark Two.
But how could not having one be worse than having one?
What then would happen if one was to make that choice?
What would happen to Volunteers who disregard the warning:
Get out of the city.
Get out of the city.
Get out of the city.
Even if you wanted to help.
For those fortunate enough to be in a city that did not suffer a nuclear weapons attack the question may arise on how to go on living after such events have occurred.
A blueprint for what can be done to make the story of the woman more attainable. The woman, taking her child to the grocer, meeting another woman on the road and chatting as the kids interact nearby,
The point is that the first points of needs of farmers and other survivors are currently met:
1. Safety
2. Shelter
3. Water -> but the story does not mention running tap water
4. Food
5. Heat -> but the story says nothing about electric central heating
This is just an excerpt of what everyone can read in his spare time.
And whoever does so becomes more knowledgeable for the case the unthinkable happens.
While location matters, it might be a great deal better where you are then elsewhere.
There might be people who get a place to go.
In Ark Two.
A new approach to the Nature of Reality and Extraterrestrials
This morning, while making coffee, this video showed up in my feed, supposing to have a fresh hypothesis on the phenomena of aircraft unidentified and with incredible capabilities, in Earths airspace.
His speculation is that all those reported phenomena are the result of a
"technological mediated extradimensional intelligence"
that has manifested itself throughout the generations here on earth
undermining the dominant belief systems and social structures.
That would explain the logical contradictions that one finds the deeper one goes into the Alien canon. Or perhaps even quite early.
Like said, there is always items and material that doesn't add up.
Those defending their testimony as genuine might be right after all, even if we have three reports of similar events contradicting each other in what would appear to be the basic characteristics of the phenomenon.
So in that way, Jacques Valee brings relief to the discussion of UFO phenomenon and the question whether there are outside visitors.
The claims there are 4, 24, 68, 85 or 126 different races is moot.
They might as well all be symptoms of one single cause.
This approach helped relieve the inner tension felt about those outrageous claims of so and so many different alien races of so and so characteristics, as their manifestation in and with those differences can still be reduced down to a single unknown factor.
Even before this video showed up this was done, in order to keep speculation to the relevant details of humanity, nuclear weapons, the reconstruction of civilization, and the appearance of unknown aircraft of unknown capacity.
Now there is a scientific hypothesis to back that up.
The suggestion then led me to this video.
what happens after
Here Vallee disseminates his view on the nature of reality.
I summarize it by providing what slides he has used in his presentation, at the end.
His work is supported and picked up on by another French scientist,
His research paper that explains the concept is the following:
Here is a simple visualisation of how that looks like:
And here is a more complex explanation with sliders and other function stuff:
And here is an explanation as to why we cant perceive all this with our eyes and our brain.
Anyways, I am glad that all this incoherence observed in reports, those strange occurences of coincidence in one's personal everyday life, and why intuition would be an interesting topic to research for any outside researcher observing Earth can be summarily explained by hypothesis.
His speculation is that all those reported phenomena are the result of a
"technological mediated extradimensional intelligence"
that has manifested itself throughout the generations here on earth
undermining the dominant belief systems and social structures.
That would explain the logical contradictions that one finds the deeper one goes into the Alien canon. Or perhaps even quite early.
Like said, there is always items and material that doesn't add up.
Those defending their testimony as genuine might be right after all, even if we have three reports of similar events contradicting each other in what would appear to be the basic characteristics of the phenomenon.
So in that way, Jacques Valee brings relief to the discussion of UFO phenomenon and the question whether there are outside visitors.
The claims there are 4, 24, 68, 85 or 126 different races is moot.
They might as well all be symptoms of one single cause.
This approach helped relieve the inner tension felt about those outrageous claims of so and so many different alien races of so and so characteristics, as their manifestation in and with those differences can still be reduced down to a single unknown factor.
Even before this video showed up this was done, in order to keep speculation to the relevant details of humanity, nuclear weapons, the reconstruction of civilization, and the appearance of unknown aircraft of unknown capacity.
Now there is a scientific hypothesis to back that up.
The suggestion then led me to this video.
what happens after
Here Vallee disseminates his view on the nature of reality.
I summarize it by providing what slides he has used in his presentation, at the end.
His research paper that explains the concept is the following:
Here is a simple visualisation of how that looks like:
And here is a more complex explanation with sliders and other function stuff:
And here is an explanation as to why we cant perceive all this with our eyes and our brain.
Anyways, I am glad that all this incoherence observed in reports, those strange occurences of coincidence in one's personal everyday life, and why intuition would be an interesting topic to research for any outside researcher observing Earth can be summarily explained by hypothesis.
Conspiracy theories as just another layer of the illusion
While it is imperative to nurture and enhance critical thinking skills, the tendencies of the human brain, as well as certain characteristics of information that are either presented to us as proven, well established facts or as new, recently proven, new facts are factors to contend with when striving to achieve a truth that more closely resembles the nature of our reality.
This shall be one guiding corner stone of this essay.
To consider, and accept, the reality of our ignorance, and even the fact that the extent of our ignorance is unknown is a starting point. We have to consider our ignorance up to the point where we would be able clearly map out what we believe to be true, and what we believe to know.
This exercise is valuable in showing us where, should our paradigms be challenged, resistance could arise, a simple emotional response from our brain deciding to make it harder to give up on established facts it deems useful for its routine. This routine it uses to get our body around in this world, make it function and prevent it from failing.
The result of the exercise would be in flow however, as our consciousness would be permanently forming new experiences, inserting them into our subconscious memory. Even reading this article is in itself a change to the current map of our areas of perceived non-ignorance.
Secondly, and most importantly, as it can be brought to awareness, is the tendency of the human brain to draw conjectures from the information it has available, until it comes up with a conclusion that includes the information it stayed aware of to a reasonable degree. This solution then 'feels' right, the only exception being mathematical proofs, which, by increasing age, can be less and less understood even by those who wrote them.
Intuition, thereby formed, allows human brains to form conclusions, which form the basis for further action, even when relying on incomplete or partially wrong information.
This was certainly an evolutionary advantage, allowing us to make, perhaps imperfect, decisions in a timely fashion. In the face of incomplete information this is the key for decisive assertive action.
While this might lead to fantastic failure, human brains rely on instincts, a core function of the deeper embedded structures of the brain, to allow a higher chance of survival even if the idea conceived should go wrong, or the decisions and actions taken should, in face of new information, turn out to be less than perfect or even disastrous.
When the primary goal of human individuals was perpetuating of their genes, and meeting of primary needs, in an environment that valued short- and medium-term goals, this mode of operation was definitely the right path to choose for human brains.
Female brains, developing a tendency to do more long-term thinking, would be the counter-balance to enable an encouragement to point immediate and short-term actions on the long-term perpetuation of the genes of their kin.
But, and here mostly limited to that, perpetuation of offspring the humans felt responsible for.
Other parts of the biosphere, or the biosphere as a whole, there mostly served as a means to an end, resource to be utilized, or a threat to contained or dominated.
This approach has lead to the conundrum civilization currently finds itself it.
Springing from this, in the face of seemingly insolvable problems, as dire consequences could only be averted by a planetary cooperation of the whole of human population, which is not forthcoming.
Add to these problems, the increasing degradation of the biosphere, the individuals problems to struggle in the economic system of the civilization.
And perhaps tensions in his social relationships, exacerbated by lack in coping skills and knowledge about the functioning of human thinking and societal dynamics.
If to this a layer of an ever increasing complexity is added, not only in the world as a whole, but of change of an ever increasing magnitude and speed in the most cherished and valued areas of an individuals life, it is only normal that the brain becomes unable to cope with all of this change. Having to acknowledge loss of control knowingly is one of the most stressful changes a human brain undergoes.
It usually pushes against this, because the ability to do so is directly related to its ability to renounce ego.
Instead, the human brain will seek out new information, to draw new conclusions from, with which to orient its further actions.
Here the characteristics of narratives and the presentation of information come into play.
History is never structured like a clear narrative, with a beginning where the actors are introduced, the middle where the conflict plays out, with the heroes facing a challenge, dying, either literally or in a figurative sense, then coming back to face the challenge with a newfound skill, finally succeeding in the end, where the challenge is solved.
History is a constant flow, and the development in the nuclear arms race on this planet bear witness to that.
Stories, however, have, despite centuries of attempts to change storytelling, remained in their basic structure.
Perhaps that is the form information is best processed by the human brain.
At any rate is there a clear tendency to latch on information that have a familiar structure, that provide a narrative and a framework for the events in this ever more chaotic and changing world. It also provides a moral framework, allowing to make judgment calls on events whose cause and purpose might appear unclear, due to obscured or simply unknown facts, or due to lack of knowledge on the structures who are at work.
But therein lies the crux.
So in an nutshell, I propose that those conspiracy theories, regurgitated and repeated by countless witnesses, circulating around the information networks might be nothing but a vehicle to control eager minds trying to make sense.
By giving them a structure they are familiar with they latch onto it.
The structure of the narrative gives them a clear orientation as to where they stand. On the good side of course. Against those ignorant, either unknowingly or willfully. And against those who participate or control the overwhelming central control, which uses its authority to impose its agenda. Which usually is considered evil. As is the unification of humankind.
But those stories have an expiration date. The are then usually silently abandoned, with others stepping in their place.
Moral standards change with the technologies available.
Bill Gates advocating genetic engineering to handle food crisis is criticized as having reckless or more sinister connotations.
But without genetic technology, due to which we don't see genetic changes in our predominant food plants not over several generations, but within a few decades, these statement of his could not even be made. Likewise, the moral standard in regards to whats allowed and natural and what is considered amoral and unnatural wouldn't arise.
What also speaks against centralist, autocratic authorities that perpetuate their agenda unchanged over extended periods of time is the sheer fact that the real facts on the ground keep changing.
Those in the affected regions, currently disregarding any genetic engineering on their food crops, might have to change their moral standpoint, and their own goals. As change occurs, when circumstances change in their region to the point that due to climatic disruptions or new diseases or other factors, new goals might have be adopted. With the choice of unchanged course of action and a 50% increased chance of a 80% decrease in crop yield during every harvest, or mitigating that by embracing genetic engineered plants, those in charge might decide that its the morally right choice to avoid having catastrophic crop failure and ensuing food crisis.
Even if that means adapting goals, over time, that are detrimental to their initial ones.
Which in this case would be to enhance and improve genetic engineered plants.
To those facts the human brain that has subscribed to conspiracy theories can latch on at any time.
Either action can be interpreted as malicious. Every information about the situation as deceptive.
The conclusion would then be drawn that it fits into a overarching scheme of harm for their group, the good ones.
What needs to be considered here is that structures of civilization are relationship networks of humans.
Decisions made by individuals inside the hierarchy might sprout weird results at the end of the tree where the last detail is executed and responsibility deflected to the ranks higher up.
Mistakes at any segment of the chain of command might be hushed up. Not out of maliciousness of the general organisation.
But out of the drive of individual humans brains to resist change to their individual routine, which they deem stressful or even threatening.
To tear down the whole fabric of civilization, because the human condition obviously reflects in human build organizations and structures, just like a mirror does not lie, is a notion only those who have grown up free from existential suffering, or those having lived under systems that did not enable individuals to satisfy existential needs due to corruption could conjure up.
Inside reform of a working societal fabric might seem like arduous, and pointless.
If the alternative however is anarchy and chaos, everyone, except the most ruthless and cunning individuals suffer. The most vulnerable suffer the greatest.
That could not be the ultimate goal of those following the notions of their brains, to cry foul of genetic engineered plants.
Or those that see an overarching conspiracy in scandals previously hushed up and now exposed in civilizations organisations.
However given massive crop failure and mass starvation, even those that call foul of new technologies (and are disregarded, because change and innovation are a constant factor in the drive of civilization) would, if they considered rationally, perhaps consider using the best of worst options. And reluctantly accept the change.
Likewise, even with all branches of government and organization being as they are, unless humans have instilled in themselves a spiritual awareness for the needs of the local collective, a willingness to disengage from their ego, and a confidence that they can master yet unheard of challenges, they need not call for the dismantling of the structures in place.
Those prevent a large scale casualties of masses of individuals in the current given situation. Those who are unwilling to change and not ready to undertake the inner metamorphosis necessary to be more self-reliant yet interdependent.
Should the situation change, drastically, and fast, one might wish back for an organisation that has a reach as far as some of those organisations have currently.
At the same time, any large scale, complete breakdown of civilization would catalyse change in human individuals. Their instincts and their default thinking patterns would kick in. Provided with spiritual guidance they would sweep away any patterns inside their brain structure that hinders adaption and metamorphosis to the new normal.
Artifacts of the obsolete old age will remain, and it would be interesting to observe how these artifacts change and evolve, over the course of half a century or more.
But that is the topic for another essay.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle
This shall be one guiding corner stone of this essay.
To consider, and accept, the reality of our ignorance, and even the fact that the extent of our ignorance is unknown is a starting point. We have to consider our ignorance up to the point where we would be able clearly map out what we believe to be true, and what we believe to know.
This exercise is valuable in showing us where, should our paradigms be challenged, resistance could arise, a simple emotional response from our brain deciding to make it harder to give up on established facts it deems useful for its routine. This routine it uses to get our body around in this world, make it function and prevent it from failing.
The result of the exercise would be in flow however, as our consciousness would be permanently forming new experiences, inserting them into our subconscious memory. Even reading this article is in itself a change to the current map of our areas of perceived non-ignorance.
Secondly, and most importantly, as it can be brought to awareness, is the tendency of the human brain to draw conjectures from the information it has available, until it comes up with a conclusion that includes the information it stayed aware of to a reasonable degree. This solution then 'feels' right, the only exception being mathematical proofs, which, by increasing age, can be less and less understood even by those who wrote them.
Intuition, thereby formed, allows human brains to form conclusions, which form the basis for further action, even when relying on incomplete or partially wrong information.
This was certainly an evolutionary advantage, allowing us to make, perhaps imperfect, decisions in a timely fashion. In the face of incomplete information this is the key for decisive assertive action.
While this might lead to fantastic failure, human brains rely on instincts, a core function of the deeper embedded structures of the brain, to allow a higher chance of survival even if the idea conceived should go wrong, or the decisions and actions taken should, in face of new information, turn out to be less than perfect or even disastrous.
When the primary goal of human individuals was perpetuating of their genes, and meeting of primary needs, in an environment that valued short- and medium-term goals, this mode of operation was definitely the right path to choose for human brains.
Female brains, developing a tendency to do more long-term thinking, would be the counter-balance to enable an encouragement to point immediate and short-term actions on the long-term perpetuation of the genes of their kin.
But, and here mostly limited to that, perpetuation of offspring the humans felt responsible for.
Other parts of the biosphere, or the biosphere as a whole, there mostly served as a means to an end, resource to be utilized, or a threat to contained or dominated.
This approach has lead to the conundrum civilization currently finds itself it.
Springing from this, in the face of seemingly insolvable problems, as dire consequences could only be averted by a planetary cooperation of the whole of human population, which is not forthcoming.
Add to these problems, the increasing degradation of the biosphere, the individuals problems to struggle in the economic system of the civilization.
And perhaps tensions in his social relationships, exacerbated by lack in coping skills and knowledge about the functioning of human thinking and societal dynamics.
If to this a layer of an ever increasing complexity is added, not only in the world as a whole, but of change of an ever increasing magnitude and speed in the most cherished and valued areas of an individuals life, it is only normal that the brain becomes unable to cope with all of this change. Having to acknowledge loss of control knowingly is one of the most stressful changes a human brain undergoes.
It usually pushes against this, because the ability to do so is directly related to its ability to renounce ego.
Instead, the human brain will seek out new information, to draw new conclusions from, with which to orient its further actions.
Here the characteristics of narratives and the presentation of information come into play.
History is never structured like a clear narrative, with a beginning where the actors are introduced, the middle where the conflict plays out, with the heroes facing a challenge, dying, either literally or in a figurative sense, then coming back to face the challenge with a newfound skill, finally succeeding in the end, where the challenge is solved.
History is a constant flow, and the development in the nuclear arms race on this planet bear witness to that.
Stories, however, have, despite centuries of attempts to change storytelling, remained in their basic structure.
Perhaps that is the form information is best processed by the human brain.
At any rate is there a clear tendency to latch on information that have a familiar structure, that provide a narrative and a framework for the events in this ever more chaotic and changing world. It also provides a moral framework, allowing to make judgment calls on events whose cause and purpose might appear unclear, due to obscured or simply unknown facts, or due to lack of knowledge on the structures who are at work.
But therein lies the crux.
'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.' - LeninAnd considering the idea that this reality, as portrayed to us, is an illusion, there is no excluding the possibility that those theories, spread far and wide over the information networks of this planet, are not only another layer of the illusion.
"I say to you that scholarly fellows
Are like the cattle on an arid heath:
Some evil spirit leads them round in circles,
While sweet green meadows lie beneath." - Mephistopheles
in Goethe Faust
So in an nutshell, I propose that those conspiracy theories, regurgitated and repeated by countless witnesses, circulating around the information networks might be nothing but a vehicle to control eager minds trying to make sense.
By giving them a structure they are familiar with they latch onto it.
The structure of the narrative gives them a clear orientation as to where they stand. On the good side of course. Against those ignorant, either unknowingly or willfully. And against those who participate or control the overwhelming central control, which uses its authority to impose its agenda. Which usually is considered evil. As is the unification of humankind.
But those stories have an expiration date. The are then usually silently abandoned, with others stepping in their place.
Moral standards change with the technologies available.
Bill Gates advocating genetic engineering to handle food crisis is criticized as having reckless or more sinister connotations.
But without genetic technology, due to which we don't see genetic changes in our predominant food plants not over several generations, but within a few decades, these statement of his could not even be made. Likewise, the moral standard in regards to whats allowed and natural and what is considered amoral and unnatural wouldn't arise.
What also speaks against centralist, autocratic authorities that perpetuate their agenda unchanged over extended periods of time is the sheer fact that the real facts on the ground keep changing.
Those in the affected regions, currently disregarding any genetic engineering on their food crops, might have to change their moral standpoint, and their own goals. As change occurs, when circumstances change in their region to the point that due to climatic disruptions or new diseases or other factors, new goals might have be adopted. With the choice of unchanged course of action and a 50% increased chance of a 80% decrease in crop yield during every harvest, or mitigating that by embracing genetic engineered plants, those in charge might decide that its the morally right choice to avoid having catastrophic crop failure and ensuing food crisis.
Even if that means adapting goals, over time, that are detrimental to their initial ones.
Which in this case would be to enhance and improve genetic engineered plants.
To those facts the human brain that has subscribed to conspiracy theories can latch on at any time.
Either action can be interpreted as malicious. Every information about the situation as deceptive.
The conclusion would then be drawn that it fits into a overarching scheme of harm for their group, the good ones.
What needs to be considered here is that structures of civilization are relationship networks of humans.
Decisions made by individuals inside the hierarchy might sprout weird results at the end of the tree where the last detail is executed and responsibility deflected to the ranks higher up.
Mistakes at any segment of the chain of command might be hushed up. Not out of maliciousness of the general organisation.
But out of the drive of individual humans brains to resist change to their individual routine, which they deem stressful or even threatening.
To tear down the whole fabric of civilization, because the human condition obviously reflects in human build organizations and structures, just like a mirror does not lie, is a notion only those who have grown up free from existential suffering, or those having lived under systems that did not enable individuals to satisfy existential needs due to corruption could conjure up.
Inside reform of a working societal fabric might seem like arduous, and pointless.
If the alternative however is anarchy and chaos, everyone, except the most ruthless and cunning individuals suffer. The most vulnerable suffer the greatest.
That could not be the ultimate goal of those following the notions of their brains, to cry foul of genetic engineered plants.
Or those that see an overarching conspiracy in scandals previously hushed up and now exposed in civilizations organisations.
However given massive crop failure and mass starvation, even those that call foul of new technologies (and are disregarded, because change and innovation are a constant factor in the drive of civilization) would, if they considered rationally, perhaps consider using the best of worst options. And reluctantly accept the change.
Likewise, even with all branches of government and organization being as they are, unless humans have instilled in themselves a spiritual awareness for the needs of the local collective, a willingness to disengage from their ego, and a confidence that they can master yet unheard of challenges, they need not call for the dismantling of the structures in place.
Those prevent a large scale casualties of masses of individuals in the current given situation. Those who are unwilling to change and not ready to undertake the inner metamorphosis necessary to be more self-reliant yet interdependent.
Should the situation change, drastically, and fast, one might wish back for an organisation that has a reach as far as some of those organisations have currently.
At the same time, any large scale, complete breakdown of civilization would catalyse change in human individuals. Their instincts and their default thinking patterns would kick in. Provided with spiritual guidance they would sweep away any patterns inside their brain structure that hinders adaption and metamorphosis to the new normal.
Artifacts of the obsolete old age will remain, and it would be interesting to observe how these artifacts change and evolve, over the course of half a century or more.
But that is the topic for another essay.
UFO flyovers harassing China and Russia
The capabilities of the unknown craft were certainly at least an order of magnitude more than any terrestrial aircraft can do.
However, humans have been very good at figuring out things by observing them.
And considering the half decade that there have been electronically documented sightings, it, according to the law of averages, is only a matter of time before, from the data gathered, human factions will be able to learn about the technology that sustains those unknown craft.
Already their hypothesis have zeroed in from potential five different exotic technologies being used to all phenomena being the result of one single technology.
Which is probably the control of gravity by unknown means.
It might be related to the advanced manipulation of frequencies in this universe.
This would enable prerequisites for the incredible maneuvers those craft have exhibited.
If gravity can be manipulated, then it might be possible to pilot craft like is done. Should the forces of inertia of acceleration be somehow be able to be negated, the craft could even be manned by living beings.
However, those are all conjectures.
What is clear is that, even considering only the most verifiable facts, there is not only unknown factors but also unknown actors to consider in the nuclear arms race and the nuclear stalemate this planet currently faces, on top of the degradation of the biosphere and other ensuing issues.
What matters during an Alien Invasion?
This is considering one of the most recited, and certainly most unlikely, scenario.
That of sentient living beings from other planets landing on Planet Earth with the goals of and/or
1. subjugate the local populace
2. eliminate the local populace
3. extract resources.
What happens, should those overt operations occur?
1. Where the landing pods come down (the alien landing craft).
2. Who is near you (which human factions or groups).
3. Which technology do you have available when they arrive?
As a human, considering that the goal of the alien faction might be to wipe out humans to have the planet for themselves, their offers for an alliance cannot be trusted.
Just like the Conquistadors, who aligned with local groups who opposed the central governments in the capitals and then were able to eliminate the head of state, thereby toppling the civilization, and eventually enslaving all remaining humans to slave and die in their mines, the other faction would make use of the paradigm of divide et impera.
Which means, they would look to cause rifts within the cooperating groups of humans, and to extend and exploit them if possible.
That does not mean that conflicts should not arise. Adversity breeds progress.
Important is that communication within humanity is open and respectful.
It can become stressful at times, but even when expressing opposing viewpoints, all parties should remind themselves and each other that they respect and appreciate each other.
On that basis, most preferably, should contact with alien factions be made.
As ambassadors of a united humanity.
Perhaps the best idea would be to send messages back and forth, with the visitors remaining off planet for the time being.
If a visit is negotiated, it would then be on the terms of humanity.
Perhaps a sane form of competition can be achieved.
Since the domain of the alien faction is currently, confirmedly, the sky and beyond, while humans are confined to the surface of this planet, perhaps a deal can be struck by which either faction takes control of the surface on the bottom of the oceans.
This would allow for a more nuanced solution to a problem the open arrival of alien visitors could pose.
That of sentient living beings from other planets landing on Planet Earth with the goals of and/or
1. subjugate the local populace
2. eliminate the local populace
3. extract resources.
What happens, should those overt operations occur?
1. Where the landing pods come down (the alien landing craft).
2. Who is near you (which human factions or groups).
3. Which technology do you have available when they arrive?
As a human, considering that the goal of the alien faction might be to wipe out humans to have the planet for themselves, their offers for an alliance cannot be trusted.
Just like the Conquistadors, who aligned with local groups who opposed the central governments in the capitals and then were able to eliminate the head of state, thereby toppling the civilization, and eventually enslaving all remaining humans to slave and die in their mines, the other faction would make use of the paradigm of divide et impera.
That does not mean that conflicts should not arise. Adversity breeds progress.
Important is that communication within humanity is open and respectful.
It can become stressful at times, but even when expressing opposing viewpoints, all parties should remind themselves and each other that they respect and appreciate each other.
On that basis, most preferably, should contact with alien factions be made.
As ambassadors of a united humanity.
Perhaps the best idea would be to send messages back and forth, with the visitors remaining off planet for the time being.
If a visit is negotiated, it would then be on the terms of humanity.
Perhaps a sane form of competition can be achieved.
Since the domain of the alien faction is currently, confirmedly, the sky and beyond, while humans are confined to the surface of this planet, perhaps a deal can be struck by which either faction takes control of the surface on the bottom of the oceans.
This would allow for a more nuanced solution to a problem the open arrival of alien visitors could pose.
The UFO Nuke Connection
One of the most confounding things is the appearance of Unidentified Flying Objects over Nuclear Weapon Storage and Launch sites.
While the evidence certainly allows not for any verification of some products of imagination (such as the nature of those commandeering the crafts, nor their intentions) the sheer existence of those phenomena, in the light of the prevalence of the existence of nuclear weapons on this planet, and the always lingering possibility of their usage, is an unknown factor that has to be considered in all future war games to be conjured up.
It doesn't help that one has no verifiable information on the nature or the intent on those sending those crafts into Earths atmosphere.
The relevance of nuclear weapons gets emphasized by their presence.
Other than that, the nuclear weapons remain a huge elephant in the room, with yet another unknown actor factoring in into their potential usage.
While the evidence certainly allows not for any verification of some products of imagination (such as the nature of those commandeering the crafts, nor their intentions) the sheer existence of those phenomena, in the light of the prevalence of the existence of nuclear weapons on this planet, and the always lingering possibility of their usage, is an unknown factor that has to be considered in all future war games to be conjured up.
It doesn't help that one has no verifiable information on the nature or the intent on those sending those crafts into Earths atmosphere.
The relevance of nuclear weapons gets emphasized by their presence.
Other than that, the nuclear weapons remain a huge elephant in the room, with yet another unknown actor factoring in into their potential usage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
This morning, while making coffee, this video showed up in my feed, supposing to have a fresh hypothesis on the phenomena of aircraft uniden...
