Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Do We Write History Or Does History Dictate To Us?

The past speaks to us in a thousand voices, warning and comforting, animating and stirring to action. - Felix Adler

History is a vast early warning system. - Norman Cousins

The #1206 “fiction” series continues …….


He started in disbelief at the PDF document on his screen as a babble of voices on the Skype call continued in the background.

One insistent voice in particular brought his attention back to the conference call.

“As explained in the document that accompanied this PDF”, explained the meeting moderator, “the PDF represents the efforts of some of the best linguists in the world for over 60 years.  We have ascertained that the content of the original material dates back several thousand years but it has taken up until now to translate it.”

He frowned as he paged through the PDF.  He opened his mouth to speak but someone else on the call beat him to it.  “How can you claim that this document is several thousand years old when it describes events in our recent past?  This has to be some kind of hoax.”, the voice expostulated.

The resulting cacophony of protests from the conference call attendees forced the moderator to mute them all.

“When we have quiet, I will continue”, he said tersely.

Pausing as the participants acquiesced to his demand, he continued.  “Good, that is much better.  It is important that you understand and accept some basic conditions before we continue.”

The moderator paused for a moment, cleared his throat and then proceeded.

“The origins of this document and our best understanding of who wrote it will be explained shortly.  However, there is something else interesting about this document.  Has anyone noticed it?”

A voice, choppy because of poor connection quality, asked in an intermittent voice, “Why does it end in 2001?”

“Ahhhh ….. excellent question”, replied the moderator.  “The original document was written beyond the point that you see here but at one point was divided into two documents, with the latter requiring a much higher security clearance that exceeds even the level of the President of the United States.  Now that we have some semblance of order, I will share my screen so that you may see what part two of the document looks like.  I will warn you in advance that what you are about to see may disturb you.”

Moments later, the screen displayed another PDF.

As soon as he realized his screen capture had been disabled remotely to prevent capturing images of this PDF, he grabbed his phone and started photographing his screen as the pages were turned by the moderator.

The moderator’s voice came over his laptop speakers.  “I have stopped on this page for a reason”, he said.  “Please note the significance of the events described on this page”.

He dropped his phone and stared stupefied at the screen.

“How is this possible?”, he thought.

“It appears”, continued the moderator, “at least according to what we have read, that we are about to live through what you see described before you.  The obvious questions, above and beyond so many, are ‘How would somebody know this in advance?’, ‘How can we verify this is real?’ and ‘Can we prevent it if someone seems to have already documented it as if it has happened already in their history?’”  The moderator’s emphasis of “their history” was unmistakeable.

His eyes flicked over Wall Street references, some references to specific hacker events, pandemonium and the results of a dreadful miscalculation by a few world leaders.  The estimated death toll, being more than 95% of the current population of the United States and Canada, particularly jumped out at him.

There was silence as people around the world on the Skype call stared at their screens in silence.

“According to one former senior advisor to the President of the United States, the events described cannot and will not be prevented”, said the moderator. “How he claims to know this is beyond my knowledge.”

“We must prepare for the transition as noted here”, he concluded.  “The difficult question becomes how.  I’m told that our hope lies not in preventing what you see described but rather, by successfully living through it.  We will be supported by legislation, particularly Executive Directive 51, which provides for the continuity of basic government services during the transition period.  What remains to be determined is who decides what 5% of the people will survive and how the process of government will be returned to those people once the transition has completed.”

He paused for a moment.

“Are there any questions?”, he asked.

To be continued.


© 2014 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved


I wrote a much longer version of this post and submitted it to members of my network for vetting as I do with all of the #1206 blogs.  It was rejected twice and I was asked to remove some specific references. 

The closing lines from “one former senior advisor” and “the moderator” are direct quotes from a former advisor to multiple Presidents in his response to my original material.  Curiously and by coincidence, he is also a master in the study of history. The death toll reference comes from him based on scenarios that he has reviewed with peers of authority.

Executive Directive 51 is an executive Presidential order that provides the President of the United States with the authority to bypass Congress, the Senate and the process of elections during times of specific emergency and until such time as that emergency has passed.  He also assumes full control of the military during the emergency period.  The definition of what constitutes an emergency is described in loose, fuzzy terms and the rights of the people during the emergency period are classified.  The President has sole discretion as to if and when the Directive is invoked and when it is revoked. 

Once the emergency has passed, the process of returning government back to a working Congress and Senate and the restoration of elections has also not been publicly defined and is in fact, also classified.

This process exists for a well-meaning President who can save a country in trouble, a mentally-disturbed President who is not quite sure what he or she is doing (or is being influenced by someone else) or a President who seeks to seize more control for any reason.

It could even be invoked by a President who, after losing an election, rationalizes that an incoming President might disrupt the country and so the Directive is invoked “in the best interests of the country”.

This is complicated stuff that exists but no one likes to talk about under the guise of “no one would ever abuse the authority”.

That’s the problem with history.  Every time we repeat it, the price goes up.

So has a process for returning power to the people been defined?  It is not known although one would suspect that if the information was simple or positive, it would not be classified.

Take from all of that what you will. 

On a side note, I much preferred the version I really wanted to write but couldn’t get permission to.  As a writer, I am unhappy with this.  As a strategy guy, I’ve said all I am allowed to say.  Ahhhh the structural tension of it all.  I will explore permission to add more data to this as time permits.

Series Origin:

This series, a departure from my usual musings,  is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks.

While this musing is just “fiction” and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of a series noted here.

No comments:

Post a Comment