The Fallacy of Laser Wielding Aliens.

A week ago, I was listening to a BBC radio broadcast, as I usually do when I am tucked up in bed. It helps put me to sleep. The program that was airing at the time was about science and discovery. The topic was the Dogon tribe in Africa.

I thought it was going to be the usual stuff that the BBC is always broadcasting about Africa in the realm of science and discoveries; a new wind-up radio that works without batteries, a cheap, fuel efficient car that could be very effective in Africa, a new, cheap, more effective treatment for malaria, and the like.

What I heard, however, shocked the daylights out of me.

It so happens that the Dogon tribe has prior knowledge of the existence of superdense matter, a new, and largely unknown phenomenon even by the latest western scientific standards. The branch of science that engages in such esoteric pursuits is called super science. Superdense matter is matter that is so compacted that it can have the size of a tennis ball, but will weigh as much as our entire planet. This matter doesn't exist anywhere near our solar system, nor does it in the nearer galaxies, or else the gravitational pull that the matter creates around it would suck us into it.

Knowledge that this matter exists was only gained lately by study of the skies, of black holes to be more specific, using the latest in telescopic technology, and the latest scientific knowhow.

So how could a spear wielding, pierced ear, thatched hut inhabiting group of tribesmen have knowledge of such a phenomenon?

Towards the end of the program, they inserted the explanation of laser wielding aliens into the argument, and then, suddenly, I realised something that has escaped me on all the other occasions that they have put forward this explanation to explain things that are found in the hands of black people, but are considered too complex to be made by them, which I actually half believed, including the Egyptian pyramids, the equally precise pyramids of south America, the stones that could not possibly have been cut by beings using simple, primitive tools.

The implicit message is this that knowledge of such complex processes and phenomenon can only be attained by thinking, fully developed human beings. Since Africans are also human beings, the implicit message is that they are not mature enough as humans to be capable of such feats, otherwise, if the BBC doesn't think this way, then the obvious explanation they would have given of the Dogon tribe phenomenon would be that they are a product of a lost civilization, a civilization that was so advanced that it internalised complex knowledge into the very genetic makeup of the people.

In this case, it would be impossible to push in another common explanation that pops up now and then, that white people lived in these regions, for example the Zimbabwe ruins, because the Dogon tribe's feat is actually too advanced to be found anywhere on this planet. We are no longer dealing with stone constructions which can easily, and convincingly be associated with particular ethnic standards. No group has such complex knowledge internalised in their cultural framework to give as an example.

Try to beat this.

You will realise the dimensions of this feat if you asked how many of us today, living in this civilization, would know the answer to simple questions like: what are the mechanics of a transistor radio, an electric motor, let alone what matter the planet Saturn consists of? And yet here we have an African tribe with knowledge so complex, so distant in the past, and yet still alive in the members thousands of years later. This civilization actualised a feat no society today is even close to emulating.

Here is the fallacy.

Let us take the present situation as the way things are. Let us imagine that the BBC and the like are right. Then we can go on and imagine civilised aliens landing on this planet thousands of years ago.

They are intelligent, they are sophisticated, they can travel (they came all this way from their planet, and left advanced knowledge all over our planet, so there is no reason to believe that they were stranded in one part of our planet). They manage to somehow communicate on a very high level with any tribe they come in contact with, otherwise it would be impossible to relay such complex knowledge to the natives. Now here is the vital question: why would they give such advanced knowledge to groups that are less advanced? Wouldn't they, with all the capacities they have, see the obvious? Wouldn't they give higher forms of knowledge to those who can understand and appreciate them? Is it not logical to conclude, by using the very yardstick the BBC so readily sticks to, that, since they didn't come to Europe, they didn't see forms of humankind worthy of their attention in this homeland of more advanced forms of humanity?

Hallo!

It is useless to exhort such vanity to change.

America's Salmon Rushdie.

I am assailed enough as it is already that I would not wish to give those who keep me in their sights the excuse they need to openly blast at me. This is why, to avoid such an eventuality, I have held out on a written response to the tragedy in America in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives, even if, as an activist, there is a lot to relate about the issue. I break my silence over the issue because I am conscious of the many issues that will remain sacrosanct and keep this race on the precipice to self destruction as long as humanity refuses to confront these issues, as long as humankind stays obedient to this barbarism which masquerades as a civilization.

My heart felt condolences go to the next of kin of all who lost their lives that fateful day, and indeed, to all Americans, and not least, to the citizens of this entire planet, because this tragedy, like any other that confronts humankind, has been experienced and shared by all.

I wouldn't hesitate to scold and be derisive to anyone who is led to believe that the events on that dark morning, watched by most people around the world, affected only Americans and Europeans. They were saddening and horrific to the whole of humankind, most of all because of the portentous nature of the whole episode when it was unfolding, which left many wondering whether they would see the same tomorrow they were used to.

It is utterly childish to imagine, or be of the belief that this is about pride, innocence, or the security of the west. This is about control of our lives, and in that instance all of mankind knew who had lost it, and the consequences to the rest of us if the fears turned out to be right.

It didn't happen this time, and we were happy to go on with our lives again, trusting, like the weak beings we are, in hope.

We can no longer be comforted, not least by the way the adults talked and acted in the aftermath.

Sometime ago, Vanessa Williams, a very popular female artist in America, sung a song whose title I cannot recollect, which starts with the following lines:

You think that the only people who are people
Are people who look and think like you...

Later in the song, if not right after this, she sings:

But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You will learn things you never knew you never knew...

Another lyric goes:

Do you know how tall a sycamore tree can grow
If you cut it down then you will never know...

This is a touching, creative song, whose message, if I am not mistaken, is much too wise for the ears it is intended for, a song that becomes more relevant in light of the October the eleventh tragedy, and the kind of followup that this tragedy has engendered, as I will explain.

The insertion of religion into the issue I will dismiss here as a simple attempt to mobilize as many people as is possible to fight the other side. There is strength in numbers when confronted with such an issue, when up against such a formidable enemy, and a General who knows the strategies and tactics of war well, knows no moral restraint in his attempts to recruit men.

The claim by many Americans that this act was an attack motivated by jealousy and envy of success, that it is as such an attempt by savages to crash that which they consider as more advanced, I will also dismiss, by saying that a civilised, advanced country has no right to disrupt and negatively influence other, less advanced countries because it is advanced. Being civilized is not a passport for this kind of terrorism.

When all is said and done, we are left with the quite valid positions held by the sides created in this issue, many of which existed way before this tragedy unfolded.

One argument which made me question this world's political priorities was the issue of refugees. The world has an asylum program in which people fleeing persecution in their own lands can seek refuge from that persecution in other countries, and have sometimes been known to launch attacks on their own countries of origin, against the authorities they are fleeing from, using the protection provided by the host country as a cover, and the funds earned in this same country as the wherewithal, if not by direct, blatant support of concerned, protecting governments.

If we keep this in mind, then we will see that the Taliban, if they are serious people, are confronted with a tricky situation. Should they yield to western pressure? If the west were in their position, would they give over a refugee they consider to be genuine, to an alien government that doesn't want to deliver the proof, a government they have their own reservations of, which, before all is discussed, proceeds to bomb them.

Seeing why the Taliban are hardheaded about this issue is easy. It is for them, and for anyone in a like situation, an issue of honour.

Another scenario that I should bring to your attention is the fact that terrorist organizations are alive and active within the confines of the European and American borders, committing acts of terror which the twin tower bombing only outdoes in the number of fatalities, who hide in residential areas, and in provinces known to the local authorities.

Imagine if one such European government that regularly gets such so called terrorist attacks asks another to hand the responsible individuals over. Now, the authorities of the lands where these terrorists operate from rule over people who would not have an idea of where these individuals hide out, and what their terrorist agenda is, what the profits and losses are, let alone understand these, and most of the time they wouldn't care less, until the terrorism visits them.

The authorities, who give tacit support to these terrorists, would definitely refuse to have them handed over. Now imagine a scenario in Europe where this impasse leads to the kind of bombing that is going on in Afghanistan. On European soil? Against European citizens? This would be an outrage. An outcry would get many paraded before the human-rights tribunal in The Hague.

This is where the song by Vanessa Williams becomes relevant.

I can imagine Afghanistani women tearing their hair out, wondering why they have to suffer so much. I can imagine Afghanistani men who have nothing to do with the bombing in America, sitting in their houses while the country side around them gets bombed, not knowing whether the next explosion will be the last sound they will ever hear, having absolutely nothing to do with the presence in their country of a man wanted dead or alive, but getting bombed nonetheless.

We are aware that the Taliban government is oppressive, especially against women, but would not like to hear this used as a cover, or as substantiation for the barbaric bombing of the country. For this, we ask the side without sin to throw the first stone. To date, all kinds of accusations have been leveled at the Taliban and their Osama Bin Laden, including the possession of nuclear weapon potentials. Which terrorist group on this planet wouldn't have access to this technology? If we were to be realistic, then we would place such suspicions on more complex groups living right in the center of a nuclear power; Europe.

There is no better way of creating a more volatile world environment than to start such a campaign which reeks of double standards. It becomes more distressing when one realises that other options are even more effective in protecting Americans, and the entire world for that matter, from such attacks in future, which they are simply ignoring. On top of it all, the move seems to have been hurried to this tragic state to placate dissent in the local, American population, to prevent people from thinking that their government and law enforcement bodies are idle and incompetent.

If we justify this move by America, then we should also consider it as legitimate for Iran to bomb England in an attempt to flush out Salmon Rushdie, or England to bomb parts of Ireland in an attempt to flush out IRA hardliners, etc., and ultimately, by logical deduction, we should extend this right to those who were behind the bombing of the WTC.

Accepting such a precedence means accepting that international bullying is legal. It is unto the one with more power to set the order, to destroy those others who, by vice of their weaker positions, cannot protect their interests; and L. Farrakhan's warnings about western domination, and the fate of mankind with regards to this, becomes very real indeed.

With the kind of arms available to governments all over the world today, it doesn't take a very gifted mind to see that the stage for an apocalypse has already been set.

Finally, I would like to set the record strait. I am against terror tactics, but, like any sentient being, wouldn't hesitate to use them against anybody who puts me in a confined position. This is asking for it. Those who perpetrate unprovoked, purely evil acts of terror should be sought out and punished. Extenuating circumstances should not be sought for such individuals. Doing so would allow entire populations to feel justified to spend their entire lives reacting to reactions to their own actions, and are inclined to overlook the sorry state of their community which has become totally dependent on another community, refusing to acknowledge this fact when they squeal and murder when the other threatens to cut the umbilical cord, content, and believing the self propagated lie that he who is fat, he who lives in plenty is the provider.

The failure of the so called developed world to provide for the poorer parts of this planet, and help them out of their misery, which would have been very easy if they were really as developed and rich as they profess, is testimony of this fact. The cost is simply too much to bear.

The imperial dream succeeded to fail in this dramatic way, but this is the way of tactics and strategies. Like a game of chase, a promising move may lead to a premature checkmate. Accepting this reality, and making amends for the harm done will do more good than bad to the entire world community.

If, in a neighbourhood, it is wrong to kill a neighbour so that one can have access to his pretty wife, then destroying a land's supporting pillars to get an advantage over them should be wrong in international dealings. If accusing Bill Gates of unfair trade practices is right, then it should be wrong to have Kwame Nkruma removed because he was mobilizing to fight a like evil in his time.

Mukazo Mukazo Vunda