The Improbable Engineering Of World Peace

In 1946, a group of men led by Jonathan Huxley, Aldous Huxley's brother, planned to bring world peace by uniting every nation under one umbrella. They messed up. Bad.

Could an Improbability Drive generate world peace?

Unlikely.

In Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," which might as well be based on actual events, the protagonist travels around the universe with a spaceship powered by an Improbability Drive. The great thing about this engine type is that it instantly gets you to far-away places. The downside is that you must handle highly improbable events when you speed up or slow down. You would have to, for example, dodge whales materializing out of the ionosphere, witness your uncle morphing into a piece of melon, or your favorite movie star giving birth to a, say, kitty on your kitchen floor when you're trying to brew coffee - among other unpredictable and absurd nonsense that can represent a hefty price for rapid travel.

Balancing the pros and cons of improbability travel is a matter of personal taste and entirely beside my point.

My point is that the absurdly improbable and the improbably absurd are both materializing on our plane of existence so rapidly right now that it makes me question whether we could be inside the contrail of an Improbability Drive.

The only (much less probable, in fact, downright fantastical) alternative is that we're in the midst of a carefully planned social engineering experiment.

The Director-General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley (Aldous Huxley's brother), envisioned the future of our planet in 1946 with the concept of "world citizenship" and a path to "permanent world peace, evolving human society from tribes to nations, and from national consciousness to one world."¹

Huxley and his team, supported by a group of elite families who were pulling a lot of strings, including those of the central banks, saw that achieving this vision would not be easy because most nations, at least then, still had a solid national identity, sovereignty, culture, history, and tradition.

They couldn't just take over sovereign nations in a series of friendly meetings over a cup of coffee, at least not without an Improbability Drive.

Therefore, they weighed in the use of advanced mass behavioral engineering techniques that would have to be employed on such an unprecedented scale that it would warp the fabric of Reality- an unethical starting point for a venture that was supposed to save the world.

Huxley recognized with the help of leading behavioral psychiatrists that people and nations would require a common enemy - something that would bring everyone to the same table for such a venture to have a shot. Not just a single enemy but a convergence of threats and disasters so grave that they would undermine society's fabric.

They thought about climate change, pandemics, and many other narratives and realized that many more improbable factors would have to happen simultaneously before real change could occur.

A toolbox of improbable absurdities would have to run parallel for optimal effect.

Mass migration, for example, although improbable, is a convenient tool to undermine national and cultural identities, strain nations' economic resources, and shake the DNA of the population.

The challenge is that to have enough migrants flooding stable, industrialized countries, they would first have to bomb the entirety of the Middle East, maybe North Africa - just to cover a sufficient flood to Europe. They'd also have to coup d'Etat nations in South America, crash them economically, and open the borders between Mexico and the United States to flood the U.S.

Both are highly unlikely endeavors.

Wars are a terrific and powerful destabilization tool, especially if they also generate hyperinflation of food and energy.

As a bonus, they saw that wars could also be used to fight nations and leaders who could see through the actual agenda and didn’t jive with the idea of giving up their sovereignty any time soon. In these cases, it would be necessary to convince the broader population that these leaders are dictators and tyrants who go against the principles of democracy and freedom, commit heinous acts all over the place, and, therefore, must be destroyed at any cost, never mind the collateral damage.

That's not a likely scenario either, since the social engineers would have to control almost every media and communications outlet to achieve such a homogeneous distortion of the truth.

The other challenge is that some of the population might refuse to follow a plan that takes away their liberties and assets, particularly obstinate subjects who like to retain a sense of individual autonomy.

It would require another toolbox of biochemical and behavioral tricks to deal with this crowd, although getting these tools to function simultaneously is highly improbable.

On the biochemical side, they could expose people to drugs, toxins, and other environmental stressors through water, air, and land in a way that degrades their health and energy in a slow - cumulative, and multifactorial - fashion so that it may not become apparent to people that they are under attack.

They could also advise populations to eat "plant-" aka laboratory-made synthetic foods that turn them fat, lazy, sick, and addicted. They could mandate government- and doctor-approved "healthy nutritional guidelines" that make people more prone to disease. They could ally with the drug companies to make these diseases a permanent feature of life.

These are all slow methods - known as "boiling the frogs" - but they work well, at least in lab environments, to compromise brain functions and cellular energy production, making the subjects much more malleable to ideas - any ideas.

Of course, in actual reality, it's highly improbable that people would not see through these stratagems and revolt in a grand revisit of the Bastille Day.

Even more improbable are the behavioral methods, which focus on distracting the subjects with everything except what matters. Promote obsession with self-identity and celebrity cultures, leveraging dopamine-maximizing social algorithms, producing inane culture and arts, corrupt politics, and lowest-common-denominator entertainment and sports designed to zombify even the most resilient subjects.

Destabilizing individual gender identities is a critical part, although probably the most improbable. Emasculating men is vital since they're the ones who traditionally pick up the fight in a bar. Men who can't do battle, get angry anymore, can't even lift a stone or form an independent opinion, and who dress in frocks are a critical part of the one-world equation because they will refuse to question anything that might upset their emotional balance and sense of eternal gratitude.

It's implausible any lab experiment could produce such a male specimen.

At the same time, women could be programmed to be exclusively concerned with their appearance and importance, as improbable as it may sound. As long as she is obsessed only with herself, the male counterpart would also feel less empowered - a powerful double whammy.

Deconstructing the sexual identity of individuals would be a crucial mission variable because it is often the last refuge for a person whose world is falling apart.

"I'm a man" and "I'm a woman" are powerful statements that would need to end up in a juice blender for Huxley's dream to have materialized.

A creative social engineer might even come up with a highly improbable narrative that refutes biological gender differences altogether and guides children to choose their own identity with a set of pronouns before they exit the schooling system. It may even be possible to slice them up with surgeries that make these identity perversions irreversible.

No parent would ever allow that to happen to their children, of course, making such a scenario highly unlikely.

In summary, in a strictly hypothetical and improbable sense, the more the fabric of individual identity is dissolved, the easier it would be to build division and hate between groups, belief systems, ethnicities, races, and genders - and permanently lodge people's attention away from what's happening around them, and where they are being led.

Different faiths, spiritual and religious strands, often a source of energy for people, would also have to be mixed and merged before reassembling them in a spiritual soup where everyone sees the same light (of delusion). Nothing like that has ever happened before.

Let's not forget the promise - although extremely improbable - of spreading pandemics, the invisible microbes that represent the ultimate threat to our lives and maximize our fear and obedience factor. The upside? Microbes can be fought only with isolation (leading to further individual and economic destabilization) and modern medical procedures that open the pandora's box for deeper biochemical intrusion.

Thankfully, no sane individual would accept such an intrusion on their medical privacy without researching what is really happening behind the curtains or inside the needles.

As Julian Huxley and his cadre believed, leaving ourselves to the forces of natural evolution will only lead to global disaster, overpopulation, and wars.

We can’t blame them for wanting to build a safe, centralized world and let go of our naive, outdated, primitive customs, nations, and traditions so that a handful of genuinely knowledgeable minds could decide our future and bring about eternal peace.

At the last moment, they realized that such a project would never materialize, being profoundly improbable and impossible - just like the present.

FOOTNOTES

1. UNESCO and the (One) World of Julian Huxley, GLENDA SLUGA, Journal of World History,Published By: University of Hawai'i Press