From the Tin Foil Dept.
If one acknowledges that the elites who prevail over worsening climate change, as intelligent sentient beings, are also survival-seekers, only an “off-world” context can explain the apparent illogical course of elites who are perpetrating the destruction of our planet Earth. Human beings need to wake themselves up to the numerous testimonies of individuals that have been in contact with various species of Extraterrestrials, and must also wake up to the experience of millions of people that have, at least witnessed apparent alien spacecraft.
The first hypothesis to be considered is that elites who prevail over worsening Global Warming have been persuaded to believe that they will be “rescued” from planet Earth, by some Manipulative Extraterrestrial group(s), in the event of a predicted catastrophic “tipping point”. Earthbound elites, may be under the impression that manipulative aliens will evacuate them from a destroyed planet Earth to an Off-world land of “milk and honey”, in regard for their having served their alien benefactors well in the context of an alleged greed driven alliance.
Unfortunately, any Earthbound elites should be aware that intelligent Manipulative Extraterrestrials are not likely to “trust” any human group that would “betray their own kind“. Any such human group viewed by manipulative aliens to be betraying their own kind, would likely be perceived as being by definition, untrustworthy, and may very well like be the targets of a longer-term manipulation strategy by any such aliens.
Hey, I thought of this too!
Goddamned manipulative aliens stole my theory and planted the idea in this guy Chang’s head!
From The Atlas Society :
Today, we live “in the future”—the future that for decades had been depicted in science fiction, pursued by scientists and engineers, and hoped for by optimistic individuals everywhere. This future, as imagined in the past, had three outstanding features. Human beings would be flourishing in a peaceful, prosperous world based on advances in science and technology; they would be engaging in heroic pursuits; and they would be creating a space-faring civilization.
On July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the moon, it took an act of imagination not to envision such a future. Yet, sadly, the real future—the world we live in today—is different from that positive vision.
To be sure, science and technology have advanced, making us more prosperous and bettering our lives. Advances in medical technology keep us alive and improve our quality of life. A single personal computer, available to anyone today for a few hundred dollars, is more powerful than the roomful of multi-million-dollar mainframes that guided humans to the moon. Endless information flows freely on the Internet. Cell phones, like Star Trek communicators, keep us in touch anytime, anywhere. And we have every sort of consumer electronic and entertainment device.
Furthermore, the Western, industrialized countries, and especially the United States, continue to prosper, and many emerging, formerly impoverished countries are joining the ranks of the enriched.
But in the industrialized West, we also see signs of cultural breakdown. Many cities in America and Europe are corrupt havens of crime, more Blade Runner dystopian than Star Trek progressive. Schools with far more money than they ever had in the past are graduating the illiterates of the future. Many adults don’t know the difference between science and scientology, astronomy and astrology. The threat of Islamofascism shows that hundreds of millions of individuals remain mired in primitive superstition, tribalism, and a lust for repression, violence, and murder.
I agree with the aforementioned statement except for the Islamofascist statement. Christofascism is just as bad, if not worse. At least when Saladin retook Jerusalem for the Muslims, he let the Westerners go. When the Crusaders first took the city, they slaughtered everyone!
Even with Hudgin’s definite bias against Islam (he should be including Christian extremists also!), he makes a great case for individualism and entrenpenuerialism in the exploration and settlement of space:
Strictly on the basis of sound economics, space exploration must be privatized. Only entrepreneurs acting freely and under the discipline of profit-and-loss incentives can properly exploit opportunities in ways that will create dynamic, off-Earth civilizations.
How might they do it?
Private parties would probably form consortia to establish space settlements. There are many historic precedents. For example, take the Mayflower Compact, in which the Pilgrims agreed to a form of self-government even before leaving for America. Similarly, settlers crossing the continent usually made contracts concerning who owed what services to whom and how the members of the group would govern themselves.
There also was a kind of market competition among the various groups of pioneers and settlers, each attracting people and capital by offering different values to individuals. For example, religious dissident Roger Williams arrived in Plymouth ten years after its 1620 founding, but within three years found himself at odds with its leaders and went off on his own to found Rhode Island.
The seeds of a competitive system of space-development consortia have already been planted. In recent decades, the government has relaxed many of its more onerous regulatory restrictions and unfair practices vis-à-vis private-sector space exploration. As a result, we are now beginning to see how our future in space might look and how that future will be established—not by governments, but by the efforts of individual entrepreneurs.
I couldn’t agree more. More money is spent on bureaucratic waste, incompetence and accidents than anything else! Also feeding pork to politicians with military-industrial-complex corporations in their home districts don’t help with funding space exploration either.
Hudgin’s then goes on to explain about humanity needing a new morality when it comes to the settlement of space:
The sci-fi novel Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson opens with a murder among the colonists on that recently settled world. The killers are Muslim extremists. That hints at a troubling prospect. As we consider bringing earthly values to other worlds, we must ask ourselves: What values?
Individualist values are required to tame any new frontier and to create a harmonious society in a new world. Initiative, independent thought, personal integrity, self-responsibility—these are the virtues lie at the heart of the individualist code.
Again with the Islamic extremism without including the Christian Fundamentalist variety, but Hudgins makes a valid statement about individualism being the proper catalyst for space settlement. To Hudgins and I agree with him on this; individualism means that; “Initiative, independent thought, personal integrity, self-responsibility—these are the virtues lie at the heart of the individualist code…” and…”individuals must think—and be allowed to think—with his own brain and call on the best within himself. He must take pride in himself and his work and hold himself as his highest value. And, if social harmony is to be secured, he must treat others as ends in themselves…”
I know this sounds libertarian, but I have always tried to live by the code of the last statement. I believe that a person should be truthful and honest in their dealings with others and I expect the same in return. Idealistic and unrealistic in this day and age to be sure, but in this I give no compromise, with myself or others.
This is the very reason I have been speaking out against the NWO, my code and their decrees are mutually destructive to each other. And Hudgins maybe an unwitting tool for the NWO with all his talk of “Islamofascism”.
But he’s on the mark about individualism and the settlement of other Worlds.