Tag Archives: space alien

Iran Says “Tall, White” Space Aliens Control America


Iran Says “Tall, White” Space Aliens Control America

Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden conclusively prove that the United States has been ruled by a race of tall, white space aliens who also assisted the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

These revelations about our alien overlords might not cost you any sleep. But the part that should concern you a tad is that the UFO story was just published by the Fars News Agency, the English-language news service of Iran, a nation that may be very close to acquiring nuclear weapons.

This being a crazy conspiracy theory, naturally the Russians are behind it. The alleged alien invasion was revealed in a report by Russia’s FSB spy agency, which found “incontrovertible proof’ that an ‘alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda’ is driving U.S. domestic and international policy, and has been doing so since at least 1945,” said the Iranian news service.

Fars apparently got the story from a hard-core conspiracy site called whatdoesitmean.com. Here is the gist of the whatdoesitmean.com story as best I understand it (or as the alien mind-control lasers allow me to understand it):

Snowden, who has been given asylum in Russia, leaked documents that a race of extraterestrial “tall whites” arrived on Earth, helped Nazi Germany build a fleet of advanced submarines in the 1930s, and then met in 1954 with President Dwight Eisenhower “where the ‘secret regime’ currently ruling over America was established.”

“Most disturbingly, this FSB report warns, is that the ‘Tall White’ agenda being implemented by the ‘secret regime’ ruling the United States calls for the creation of a global electronic surveillance system meant to hide all true information about their presence here on earth as they enter into what one of Snowden’s documents calls the ‘final phase’ of their end plan for total assimilation and world rule.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is embroiled in a “cataclysmic” power struggle between President Obama, who heads the alien shadow government, and some unknown force that opposed the U.S.-alien alliance. “Most to be feared by Russian policy makers and authorities, this [FSB] report concludes, is if those opposing the ‘Tall White’ ‘secret regime’ ruled over by Obama have themselves aligned with another alien-extraterrestrial power themselves.”

Any good conspiracy theory needs a patina of truth, a bit of intellectual cover to camouflage the craziness. In this case, the whatdoesitmean.com/Fars story cites Paul Hellyer, the 1960s Canadian defense minister who is now a fervent UFO activist. Hellyer allegedly has confirmed the accuracy of Snowden’s UFO leaks.

This is almost a funny story, until one remembers that Iran is a moderately powerful nation of 76 million people, with a possible nuclear arsenal, relatively large conventional military power, extensive terrorist capabilities through its intelligence agencies and Hezbollah, and a fundamentalist government that could easily engage in hostilities against the U.S. Laugh if you will at conspiracy theories, but they offer explanatory value for their believers, a way of making sense of why things happen, even if it a funhouse-mirror explanation of the world. The Fars News Agency is reportedly affiliated with Iran’s influential Revolutionary Guards, which suggests that either Iran is either desperate to smear the U.S. any way it can, or there indeed is a very peculiar view of U.S. politics at the highest levels of the Iranian government.

If there is a bright spot to this as well as a funny bone, it’s that the goal of U.S. policy is to contain and neutralize Iranian influence. So, perhaps it’s not necessarily a bad thing that Tehran thinks its main adversary is backed by the power of space aliens. It’s good to have friends in high places, even if they have two heads.

SOURCE

Will the Aliens Be Nice? Don’t Count On It


Will the Aliens Be Nice? Don’t Bet On It

By GARY GUTTING

The probability that there is intelligent life somewhere other than earth increases as we discover more and more solar systems that seem capable of sustaining life. The thought that there might be extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI) somewhere out there excites us and has led to organized efforts to contact any such beings. We have sent space probes with data about us, and we transmit signals with a structured content (like symbols expressing mathematical formulae) to what we hope will be an intergalactic audience. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence project (SETI) is obviously based on the assumption that the possible benefits of contact with ETI outweigh the possible harms. But do they?

A recent study by researchers at Penn State and NASA provides a useful outline of the various ways that encounters with ETI could be beneficial, neutral or harmful to us. The study faces up to the most chilling possibilities: ETI might “eat us, enslave us, attack us,” inadvertently infect us with horrible diseases or just decide to eliminate us for the greater good of the universe. (Regarding this last point, the report is especially concerned that ETI might be at least metaphorically green and see us a threat to the universe’s ecology.)

The report draws no conclusions about the wisdom of pursuing SETI, though it does urge the need to develop quantitative measures of possible harms and benefits. Its final sentence seems content with the idea that we will “continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future.” Especially after reading the report, I am not so content.

What is likely to happen if we make contact with ETI? Given the size of astronomical distances and assuming the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity, the most likely outcome is not real contact but merely an exchange of messages, perhaps at very long intervals. Little chance of harm there.

But there is still non-zero probability of real contact. Since we have no way of predicting with any certainty the outcome of such contact, it might seem that we have no reason to assume a bad rather than a good result. From this we might conclude that there is no objection to pursuing SETI, if only to satisfy our curiosity.

But we do know this: for the foreseeable future, contact with ETI would have to result from their coming here, which would in all likelihood mean that they far surpassed us technologically. They would be able to enslave us, hunt us as prey, torture us as objects of scientific experiments, or even exterminate us and leave no trace of our civilization. They would, in other words, be able to treat us as we treat animals — or as our technologically more advanced societies have often treated less advanced ones.

This suggests an argument against SETI that is the reverse of Pascal’s famous wager argument for believing in God. Pascal’s idea was that even a small probability of bringing about an enormous good (without risking unacceptable evil) was good reason for acting. This is a reasonable principle: even a small prospect of enormous good can swamp the prospect of more probable but much lesser goods. Pascal’s argument runs into trouble not because of this principle but because of worries about, for example, which God we ought to believe in. (There is also, as William James pointed out, the disconcerting possibility that God might be particularly ill-disposed to people who believe in him through the calculating reasoning of the wager argument.)

The swamping principle also applies to a small possibility of an enormous evil, which can provide a good reason for not acting. This would seem to be the case with ETI. Since there’s at least a small (and perhaps a not so small) probability that they will bring us catastrophic evil, why should we risk such an outcome?

One reason might be that ETI could instead bring us enormous benefits: they might even lead us to a paradise of peace, wisdom and joy. But there is no reason to think that such a paradise is more probable than a hell of slavery or extermination. And enormous gains are not worth the equal risk of horrendous loss. Who would take a bet that promised, at equal odds, either a lifetime of unalloyed happiness or a lifetime of utter misery? Better to stick with the likelihood of a normal human life, mixed with joy and sorrow.

Another possible reason is that ETI might in fact save us from horrors equal to the worst they might inflict on us. If the probability of their saving us were equal to or greater than of their destroying us, then the bet of making contact might well be worth it. Here the most plausible suggestion is that, without intervention from powerful and good ETI, we are likely to destroy ourselves through nuclear war. But there is a failure of imagination in thinking that nuclear annihilation is as bad as the worse that ETI might do to us. They might, for example, give us each thousands of years of excruciatingly painful existence as their slaves. This might not even be due to moral perversity; they might be so beyond us that they were incapable of recognizing us as objects of moral concern.

We cannot know what might happen to us from contact with ETI. But we do know that there may well be unthinkably horrible outcomes that are not likely to be offset by potential benefits. We should not take the SETI bet.

SOURCE