Intro, & Welcome to my World, Part I

Introduction to the parallel world history, Part I

I am very much enjoying this Substack thing. One thing I love is adding new sections. So, I thought, rather than clogging up my journal with such a disconcerting, or discombobulating (a weird word if ever there was one) mashup of ramblings, in the interests of not confusing your dear little heads more than I have to (you really, really wouldn’t want to be me), it struck me as somewhat more practical to organise a new section.

We do have Substack in my world, by the way. As far as I can tell so far it looks pretty much identical. I’m still exploring it though, so there may be some features in our version that either do or don’t exist in yours. And vice versa. I’ll let you know. Likewise, it strikes me to do an article about social media in my world. It’s really quite different, especially since it’s not totally controlled by the monsters (read: American Deep State/Silicon Valley). People do ask me about the little differences. So I’ll defo get that done for you in due course.

Anyhow, maybe I’ll pin this one to the top. So this is my little intro to The Liberal Socialist Manifesto. Essentially, this is, or has become, the system underlying my world, which has incrementally turned our world into a burgeoning utopia (certainly compared to this horrorshow post-truth shithole you call your own world). Given that people are constantly bombarding me with questions about my world it really, really does behoove me (I love that verb) to tell you all about it. The contrast with your world will become blindingly clear as we go on. Likewise, maybe you’ll get some insight into how to fix you. You will also, I hope, receive the education you deserved to have received, but which has been deliberately and demoniacally denied you.

Did you like that alliteration by the way? Yeah, I’m in one of those moods. You have been warned.

Oddly enough – and I am getting a little suspicious about this, for sure – when, as usual, I had to run this intention by my case officer, that person had little objection. I’m presuming they consulted their superiors about it, so I’m more than a little intrigued about that. Maybe they think I’ll not be making any significant impact? Maybe they think they’ve got everything under perfect control in terms of ‘public opinion’ (manufactured and maintained by the mainstream media – did you like the alliteration there too, by the way? Hah!) and, at least in my not-so-humble opinion, the demonstrable capacity to massively rig elections. Ironically, it was the exposure of a rigged election in my world which precipitated the final downfall of Blair’s ‘New Labour’ project and ushered in our British Lizzies. ‘Lizzies’ by the way, in case you hadn’t guessed, is the affectionate nickname for the Liberal Socialists.

Likewise, they clearly don’t mind about my so-called ‘conspiracy theories’. They’ve clearly got that one covered too with their cadre of cognitive infiltrators, and besides, they could either say ‘you know Katrina’s totally fucking mad, right?’ or go for the more cryptic metaphysical option ‘maybe in Katrina’s parallel world 9-11 really was an inside job’. ‘Hell, maybe they even have different laws of physics too, eh!’.

Seeing as this is just an intro, I’ll not go into too much detail here about the in-depth parallel history of our world – I’ll do that in a more comprehensive series of articles. But here’s the condensed bite-size version for your internal data file – in terms of the broad sweep of history our two worlds are, as far as my historical researches can tell so far (suppression of true history notwithstanding, of course – yeah, Willypedia, I’m looking at you) broadly speaking virtually identical, until around about thirty-or-so years ago, at which point our timelines begin to diverge. The ‘90s was intriguingly similar and I’m beginning to visualise the two versions like some kind of serpentine double-helix. One of the metaphysical hypotheses regarding parallel worlds concerns the ‘gravity of the timeline’. That’s to say although it may well be possible to change a timeline in the short-term, this is only temporary, and later down the line it reverts back to its original course. Kind of like throwing a pebble into a pond and creating temporary ripples (the stone is still at the bottom though, if you want proof). You can also visualise this as a long piece of taut string – pinch it up a bit in the middle and yeah, it’s raised above the horizontal there, but further to either side it's still horizontal. To actually wrench the entire thing off onto a different course is something else entirely and would require, well, divine intervention might be a useful term. Then again, for an individual ‘local reference frame’ (such as, for example, the human social history of just this one planet) it’s perfectly possible to alter the timeline on to a permanently different course, without affecting, say, anything else in our local galactic sector. If you think of all those ‘what-if’ questions of history, in which ‘if only the people in charge had made a different decision’, then this becomes perfectly comprehensible and credible. The outcome of this or that battle, for example. Yeah, another topic for a future ramble.

There are naturally other metaphysical considerations in parallel world philosophy, including various aids to visualisation (multiple balls of string all wound up together, for example) and the (in my world) currently prevailing theory known as MMT – ‘Multiversal Molecule Theory’ – which, in a sentence, goes something like ‘universes with the same laws of physics are entangled; they connect (or clump) together to form (finite) molecules; those molecules connect with other molecules to form the multiverse.’ Then the amusing disclaimer, ‘what that looks like is a question best left to the philosophers’.

Couching this in quantum theoretical terms, we’re simply talking about ‘entangled’ particles (across multiple universes rather than just one), or wave functions – the molecular wave function, which encompasses multiple possibilities, ‘collapses’ (i.e. the wave becomes a particle – the so-called ‘observer effect’) into the linear-time, classical physics particle-based reality which is the universe (see also Schrödinger’s Cat). Given that the wave function involves all the possible positions, spins, velocities and pathways etc. of each particle, when the collapse happens, multiple versions of the universe come into being in order to preserve the multiplicity (sum over histories). If you think about it logically, from the wave’s point of view, you can’t have ‘only one’ option, if multiple options exist. To have only one would mean the annihilation of all the others, in which case the wave function itself (the multiplicity of possibilities) would never have existed in the first place. Just that because different options are incompatible, in the sense that, for example, you can’t be seated in your present position and an inch to your left, this universe can only accommodate one version of your positions. Thus, given that it’s possible you could be an inch to the left, there must logically be such a universe in which you are.

[Katrina, stop misdirecting your readers with this quantum entanglement Everett Hypothesis rubbish – you know perfectly well there’s no such thing as quantum teleportation, it’s just science fiction. Look, who’s writing this, me or you? I’m creating a persona here. I thought you’d approve? Besides, the truth is, our world’s knowledge of the nature of reality is somewhat more advanced that yours, so shut it. It goes a bit beyond charge field theory. Here’s the something from nothing bit which kind of overrides your mechanical objections. Besides, you told me I’m not allowed to talk about advanced science, seeing as it’s been denied to the masses? So how else am I going to explain it? Fair point, Katrina. Pray continue.]

In the ‘something from nothing’ consideration, we are saying that logically the only ‘thing’ that can arise from ‘no-thing’ is possibility itself (there is no ‘real reality’ in that sense). And if possibility can arise, then it must be multiple possibility – it’s absurd to think there’s only one. Either there is no possibility, or there are all possibilities. The existence of parallel worlds is simply the neat, logical way to preserve the totality of options.

Some of those options, by virtue of their similarity (or closeness) are ‘compatible’, and thus lead to ‘connection’ (entanglement), whilst others are unimaginably different and therefore utterly incompatible. This latter has, naturally, been a rich vein for certain writers of cosmic horror. What happens when incompatible worlds collide? Well, let’s call it the Revelation, or something. I created a movie franchise about that. It’s called ‘The Event Movie Franchise’. Sorry, I must not digress.

But back to our history. One of the first things I noticed about the differences, being a history scholar, is that although our two histories are virtually identical up until thirty years’ ago, you seem to have an entirely different narrative of this history. Yours, and I really do need to inform you about this, is a manufactured, fraudulent structuralist view of history. This is deliberately manufactured as a disguise and concealment by those who have, indeed, shaped history for the previous five thousand years, and certainly even more so in recent centuries. Remember that the structuralist view of history (originating with Marxism, ironically enough) removes individual agency from the timeline. You might call it the ‘shit happens’ view of history. Even a cursory appraisal of history reveals what utter bollocks that is. Like, if I ask you to do the ‘if you had a time machine what would you go back and change’ thought experiment, then your answer would be an anti-structuralist answer. That’s to say, you would tell me that you’d go back in time and kill someone. Obviously, aside from the crude and psychologically disturbing undertone there – you’re killing an innocent person (before they ‘did anything’ – and can’t you think of a more humane method? An art exhibition, perhaps?) – it shows a very superficial understanding of history. Sure, although I am a devoted anti-structuralist, that does not also imply I think ‘just one person’ can be so all-powerful that removing them alone can irrevocably alter the timeline. As Brecht would’ve said, they need at least some help from others. It wasn’t Napoleon that conquered Europe, for example – he did need an army.

Perhaps without consciously realising it, in thinking this way you are instinctively taking an anti-structuralist view. If you believe that using that time machine to go back and eliminate William the Bastard will change everything then you are assuming that it was his decision-making alone that was responsible for the subsequent timeline of British history (and consequently, by extension, world history too). It wasn’t that ‘Normandy declared war on England’, but ‘William the Bastard’ did it. Personally, I would wholeheartedly agree with you on this one and be in full support of your time-travel decision. Mind you, you’d have to get behind me in the queue – I would be entirely prepared to get in that machine and go all Terminator on the motherfucker. I’d geld the bastard first too probably.

But then, clearly, one person can make a difference, simply through inspiration. Napoleon is a perfect case in point there, as it happens. Some people already call me a fantasist, and undoubtedly more and more people will as my story becomes more widely known, because I’ve mentioned the crucial, indispensable role I myself played in the divergence of the timeline. When I was back in my world, I didn’t acknowledge this fully. And it wasn’t just out of modesty. I could well see how there were many other actors responsible for making our world a better place. So that blaze of glory wasn’t entirely true. But now I come here to your world and actually, without me in it, you still have a dystopia. Then again, there are other characters who aren’t in this world either who also made the difference.

Interestingly, there’s a grandfather paradox here. One thing they told me about when I was in Paris was that the man who was my (paternal) grandfather was killed on the Eastern Front in 1943. In the Ukraine, to be specific, attempting to defend a Ukrainian village from a nocturnal attack by Stalin’s psychopathic ‘partisans’. If you want to be religious about this, which my grandfather was (at least after this incident), in my world he uttered a little prayer just before the firefight began. ‘Help me protect these people’, he beseeched the Goddess. Moments later a ricocheted bullet grazed his right temple. He wore that scar with pride for the rest of his life (that and his beautiful Iron Cross – although he didn’t exactly wear that in public, for understandable reasons – it came in a gorgeous little box). Although in this world the Wehrmacht record doesn’t provide details, I can well imagine that perhaps he didn’t pray before that firefight, and so was immediately killed by that bullet – just one inch to the left. As the leader of that little squad, the other six, too, would’ve been defeated (there were around thirty of the enemy). One of those six also happened to become the grandfather of a woman called Kirsten Lindauer (her mother, Petra, married his son). My best friend/big sister Kirsten, actually. In 1991 Petra and myself became the two co-leaders of what would become the Liberal Socialist Party (the British Green Party, as it was at the time), with, in 2003, Petra eventually becoming Prime Minister (for Foreign, Defence, and Intelligence Affairs – I’ll explain all that later). Kirsten succeeded her in that role in 2014. So you see, from my point of view, maybe in your future someone did build a time machine, having identified the weakest historical point, the easiest to change with resultant temporal reverberations, then used that machine to go kill my grandfather. The bastard. Not my grandfather, the time traveller, I mean.

It is, indeed, interesting and spiritually uplifting how one life touches so many.

I’m sure I’ll get around to telling you all about it sometime.

But I have been digressing. Our historical narrative, then, quite simply accepts the existence of the ‘hidden hand’. It’s what Karl Popper would’ve called ‘the conspiracy theory view of history’ – which is, simply, a derogatory term for ‘anti-structuralism’, to which I, and most reputable historians in my world, happily adhere (this pertinent article by the wonderful Iain Davis is well worth a read). The hidden hand essentially being the (usually covert) machinations of a small minority social group of powerful people manipulating events for their own benefit (call them the globalist cabal, if you will – I just call them monsters). From a simple psychological point of view, this is simply a ‘group survival strategy’ on their part – to think of it in those terms certainly demystifies the whole ‘conspiracy theory’ thing. This group sees the rest of us as ‘the other’ – this should be obvious to you.

This is the way to understand British history since 1066, by the way. The ‘Establishment’ is simply the heirs and successors of William the Bastard – a foreign, despotic evil barbarian invader. Their ‘cultural identity’ – or ‘social group identity’ is the same as William’s, and is other to us. And it really has been that way ever since. They only pretend to include you in their ‘definition of the nation’ – but it should be obvious to you that they (especially the Tories) see the British people as ‘the other’ (they are racist towards us, in other words), and they genuinely believe they have a right of ownership over the country and the people, perhaps by virtue of some arbitrary ‘right of conquest’. If the British people ever comprehensibly understood this – as they came to do in my world – then that small minority group, the ‘occupying forces’ wouldn’t last very long. ‘We’ would take our country back. Finally. This historical understanding, by the way, is one of the essences of our historical Liberal Socialism.

So, what made the difference in my world – in which I myself, clearly, had an indispensable hand (and hidden at times too, lol) – is that this group were essentially publicly exposed. This exposure took place incrementally over the course of around ten years, effectively the 1990s decade – finally ending with the exposure of the 9-11 event – which most historians would describe as a final act of imperial desperation. They took a risk, and they lost.

Well, baby – shit happens.

In order to subjugate you, one of the crucial things they have to do is capture certain vitally important academic/intellectual subjects and then lie to you about them, deceive you into believing (and thus acting upon) a fraudulent perception of those subjects. Specifically, we’re talking about anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, history, and of course economics.

In anthropology and psychology, it’s about convincing you that humans are chimp-like and naturally bellicose. That narrative certainly applies to them, but not to the rest of us. Control over the narrative is key, because human beings see the world through stories. Yep, narrative theory is another future topic.

In history and economics, it’s convincing you of structuralism – in other words, that ‘history’ and ‘economics’ both have some kind of life of their own, as if they are somehow conscious of some underlying teleological purpose, which is utterly ridiculous. The concept of inflation, for example, is an obvious one. Prices don’t put themselves up, people put prices up. There is no ‘ghost in the machine’ about economics. Every economic decision is made by an individual or small group of individuals. That’s it. In our world, economics is seen as a sub-branch of behavioural psychology, simply dealing with ‘transactional human behaviour’. History, or Psychohistory, perhaps, likewise.

Don’t worry, darling reader, I will give you some economics lectures later. For your own edification, you know.

With regards to anthropology and psychology, what they essentially want you to believe/do is two things. One, they want you to unlearn your innate moral goodness, and two, they want you to believe that a hierarchical social structure, i.e. authoritarianism or ‘statism’ is the normal, natural way for humans to organise a social group. The latter of course usually having some kind of ubiquitously male chieftain or ‘alpha male’ at the top. Presumably this alpha male would have his pick of other men’s women – if you want to understand what a load of utter cobblers that is, then just think about how you would feel, dear reader, if you found yourself in a small social group of around 150 people with that kind of structure. You fall in love and then along comes the big chief and says ‘sorry, jus prima nocte, mate,’ then proceeds to deflower your bride. And he does the same to everyone else in the group. Do you really think you’d just lie down and take that kind of shit? Is it not fucking obvious that it would never get that far, because that kind of behaviour would be detected, and then ostracised long before that? This is a consequence of the social cognition number, by the way (150 – you know it as ‘Dunbar’s Number’) – the number of people you can know to the extent that you know everything about them. No arsehole can escape that knowledge. At least, not for long, anyhow.

And as for your ‘innate moral goodness’ – this obviously stems from your feelings in that situation – no one likes an arsehole and everyone has a shit detector. You are born knowing what an arsehole looks like. This is the basis of morality, which is to say ‘the optimum behaviour for life in a social group’. Thus, by the word ‘liberal’ in Liberal Socialism, we simply mean ‘free will’, in the sense of ‘not being told what to do by others’. Advice and guidance from those whose specialist role as an expert permits it, sure, but that’s not the same thing as ‘authoritarianism’. Put an arsehole in that role, however, and tolerate their continued being there, and they will abuse it – and you – in the process. So for ‘liberal’ we might also mean the word ‘anarchism’ – in the true sense of the word ‘an-arche’, ‘lack of ruler’. The innate, natural behaviour of human beings is egalitarian and sharing (thus – socialist). The likes of anthropologists such as David Graeber wrote some excellent and must-read stuff about all this. [I would direct you to articles on the Nevermore Media Substack (see my recommendations) – here and here and especially here are good starts. The latter contains an excellent essay by Richard B. Lee, which should be required reading for students of the evolutionary history of humanity.]

Suffice to say, in the British education system in my world, this kind of stuff is a central part of the national curriculum. It therefore provides every young person with an immunity to the kind of deceptions I’ve been talking about. Likewise for economics, history, neuroscience and all the rest of it.

Thus, it should be obvious why the monsters want you to believe that their behaviour is normal and natural. It is not. Patriarchal authoritarianism may well be their normal system, being little evolved from bellicose chimps, but it’s not the human way. They are essentially the arseholes of human history who, with the advent of the agricultural revolution and its increasing size of human settlements, were able to eventually escape detection and ostracism, then incrementally take control. The limits of the social cognition number only become felt when human social groups exceed a certain threshold (it’s actually this number squared, but that’ll require a more detailed elucidation).

So, over the course of our 1990s this monster group, the hidden hand, was incrementally exposed to public view. And the public, with their innate moral goodness – i.e. they fundamentally object to a small cabal of arseholes maintaining social control and fucking with everyone’s lives – and their sense of righteous anger and justice, eventually just rejected them. Ostracised them from social influence, you could say. Thus, for example, here in Britannia, the Liberal Socialist Party finally won the landslide they (and the country) deserved in May, 2003. Then they set immediately to work in making the world a better place. And the rest, as they say, is our history.

There had always been a glaring open goal in the political compass in Britannia for a proper liberal and socialist political party. Because that’s what normal human beings are. Liberal and social. The Establishment, naturally, tried their very best to prevent it, using both overt (propaganda) and covert (infiltration, controlled opposition, vote rigging) methods, but eventually, well, they lost. We won.

But that’s another story. For next time.

But you still have that open goal. Remember that and act upon it. That is, if you love your country and want to live in a better place?

Anyway, to be continued. See you later.