I don’t think that Shockadelic is interpreting the Mandela Effect as parallel universes - but those that write / review history select based on their persuasion. Also - most people other than academics have other priorities and may not remember details correctly. There are a few things here - if academics are not portraying facts correctly they are breaking a trust – the public that do not remember the facts correctly have as part of the mechanics of society / division of expertise – paid for the dutiful labour of the academics. If the academics fail to fullfil the obligations of their role maybe the public needs to review it.

Use quantum computers- Eventually nobody will remember the original facts.

Yes computers can determine motivation / manipulate it – see Cambridge Analytics – ironically appearing to be coming from the right wing rather than the left that appears to be more influencial in the current era.

Children raised in a deracialized, borderless utopian world will see museums and history books with deracialised, borderless people. It was "always so".

I felt the 1984 quote had resonance. The zoologist author Desmond Morris – The Human Zoo said that de-racialising the world was a desirable goal. However his way to achieve this seemed to be fairly sparse on detail. At other points he says that packing animals densely tends to cause conflict and other atypical behavior. I suspect that this becomes more pronounced when “two different” human groups are densely populated. Confucius - understanding of family relationships are critical for an understanding governing. Many societies also have extended families, a village can be a cooperation of a few large families and what could be called a retinue of smaller less powerful families. In these types of society care of the old and young are internalized and the families are self sufficient. The question is why would someone want to promote a society that destroys the family. Ted Kaczynski – Believed the industrial-technological system enslaves society - “the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race”.

*The intention is supposedly benevolent, … ultimately evil.
A "better" world, but a false one. And nobody will know.

That’s the point about democracy – the reason for a distribution of power is because no one has all the answers no matter how many PhD’s or how many boards we sit on – A great person once said “save us from the benevolent do gooders” and “there are do gooders and those that do good”. The importance of free speech is too subtle for many. You don’t have to listen forever, you don’t have to agree with them, you don’t have to do what they say – but once in a while you need to listen to things outside of your comfort zone… Once in a while we make mistakes, at these times its important to check the mirror, review our actions – it can be a painful process, not everyone is strong enough. Human societies / animal behavior has developed over millions of years – some humans think they know better than time and nature – they think they can have their name written in the history books – sometimes (rarely) they can. History is littered with painful remains of foolishness. You cannot break the rules of the universe – you can only break yourself against them. That is why its important to follow principles of science and democracy not scientism.
Usually when someone of the hard sciences says that something is probably true you can count on it – but when someone from soft sciences or even social “pseudo” sciences says that something is true you need to check their facts. David Émile Durkheim 1817d is apparently the academic that formally established the academic discipline of Social Science. “Kant’s Four Fold Root Of Reason” talks about how disciplines span from Philosophy to Mathematics and Hard Science to Biology to Psychology and Anthropology – from the simple to the complex essentially. If we want stability we should be very careful about changing complex systems as the results are unpredictable.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is "crazy".

Fools rush in…

I liked the Occam's razor - latin quote by Toni Lavis.
And also the quote about destroying history from the book 1984 by Shockadelic.

Toni,

"Oh Jesus, not you too, mhaze. Seemed like you had more sense than that"

Break it up, Toni. There was nowt in my post that suggested support for the lunacy of the time travelling alien brigade. I've just learned over the years that there are some occasions when its best to just figuratively cross the road to avoid the crazy man shouting at shadows.

Failure to disavow a moronic notion isn't the same as supporting it.

Now I know how Taylor Swift feels. She was lambasted for avoiding the whole #metoo moronosity, being accused of supporting misogyny by not piling on.

Actually, I don't know how Taylor Swift feels....but I'd like to ;)

mhaze, no aliens or even parallel universes required.

Everything I said is feasible based on quantum physics and human technology.

CERN is colliding particles in *this* universe with *our* tech.
Quantum entanglement of those particles across time and space therefore results.

The only question would be pinpointing where in the "past" any exact particle was "present" and how to alter its effects.
And that's where 600,000 experiments per second and quantum computers come in handy.

Even if this were technically impossible in *today's* world, this tech will only develop in the future.
And it may well be future technicians doing this.

So the potential for this historical editing agenda is feasible, if not "now" then in the near future.
It therefore must still be addressed and cannot be ignored.

QBits are interesting. But I'm unconvinced by many worlds theory.