Hi Everyone,
Note: Clown created using Grok 4.0
The world has become more volatile than ever. US foreign policy and actions are shaking up the world. The US Government has intervened in other countries for decades. The current wave of foreign interference is not new; it is just different. The US Government acts on behalf of the US Establishment or factions of it and Global Establishments. They use various mechanisms and tools at their disposal to do that. These include international bodies such as the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intelligence agencies, and even direct military threats.
The Establishment can be defined in many different ways. There is not a universally agreed definition. I have explored the Establishment and how it functions in several of my posts. I go into the most detail in the following posts:
I divide the Establishment into five areas. These are the Government, Big Business, Financial/Banking Sector, the Media, and Religious Institutions.
The Government is the direct gateway to the people. They are primarily responsible for controlling the people and extracting wealth from them to the elite. Government leaders can be elites. We see this with dictators and embedded leaders in Western countries. Most leaders in Western countries are just faces for the Government/political party and the Establishment. If they follow instruction, they are rewarded with wealth and the projection of power.
When I use the terminology of Big Business, I am referring to the largest companies in the world relating to areas such as food and agriculture, technology, energy, weapons, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. They control key areas of production. Government enriches these companies through grants, contracts, and regulations that harm smaller competitors. In return, leaders in Government are rewarded with donations, opportunities for future well-paying jobs (e.g., international bodies or speaking tours), insider trading knowledge, and publicity and fame.
Banks (private and central) and other financial institutions control money. They control its creation and its movement. They have the power to cause even large economies to crash in the short run. The vast majority of people in the West are in debt to banks (e.g., credit cards, student loans, mortgages, and other hire purchase debt). Almost every country in the world has significant debt. Much of that debt is owed to financial institutions (domestic and foreign). Banks play a significant role in funding investment (public and private). They can ‘indirectly’ influence how governments spend and invest. Digital currencies will enable banks and financial institutions to be even more powerful, as they will be able to retain almost all wealth within the banking system. They are merely changing numbers on a screen.
The media control information and influence public perception and even ideology. Media includes traditional mainstream news, major social media platforms, major streaming platforms, and all mainstream broadcasted entertainment. They have the power to boost, sink, or bury any public figure’s career. They have immense power because of the extent of their control and dominance. Independent media may appear as a form of competition, but they are greatly restricted to social media platforms’ rules and algorithms. If a form of alternative media has become popular, it is because it has been allowed to become popular. For example, used as controlled opposition.
The role of religious institutions may appear to have diminished. I would argue their role is significant. They shape ideology and culture. Christianity has been the greatest influence on European culture, ideology, economics, and political structure. Islam continues to play a fundamental role in predominantly Muslim countries. Europe is quite rapidly shifting away from Christianity. Far fewer younger Europeans practise Christianity. In some European countries, church attendances have halved in just a decade. However, the number of Muslims through migration, higher birth rates, and conversion has increased sharply. The number of mosques in Europe appears to have also sharply increased, but data is conveniently limited. These rapid changes in religious demographics will shift power and influence to Islamic religious leaders.
The Establishment have mechanisms and tools to exert their influence both internally and externally. Mechanisms differ from the five areas in that participating leaders and members represent one or more of the five areas. For example, the Bilderberg meetings include representatives from government, big business, financial institutions, and media. It acts as an outlet rather than a source. Tools differ from mechanisms, as they are involved in implementing agendas rather than formulating them. Therefore, the leaders of organisations I consider as tools are often consulted by organisations that act as mechanisms. It is common for representatives from NGOs and universities to attend international meetings and forums.
The mechanisms include think tanks, global organisations, and international forums and meetings. They are used for collaboration, implementation, and messaging. Think tanks normally hold meetings to discuss high-level topics and strategic direction. They gather input from leaders from the areas discussed earlier. Outputs from think tanks are often passed down to other forums and international organisations to further unpack the ideas and to discuss methods of implementation. Some forums, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), are used to set direction and convey plans to the people. Most decisions have already been made at this point. Discussions act more as theatre for easier public consumption.
The tools include academia, NGOs, unions, and intelligence agencies. They are used to influence public opinion. Academia influences (brainwashes) young potential future professionals and leaders to follow and embrace certain ideologies. NGOs push ideology at the grassroots level through funding and organising. Unions use ideology to promote propaganda and stimulate unrest among the working class. Intelligence agencies use threats and blackmail to convince people, often in positions that have some influence, to act in a particular manner.
The US Government justifies their actions based on narratives. These narratives often focus on national security threats. It could be a pre-emptive strike to stop a claimed imminent attack. It could be in response to a terrorist attack. This attack might have been real, allowed to happen, a false flag, or even a hoax. They sometimes use the hero narrative of protecting another nation or group of people. The narrative is important because it builds public support for direct intervention.
The US Government, together with the media, builds narratives around events occurring in other countries that they have covertly stimulated. These events are often riots, uprisings, and other forms of serious unrest. They will claim this is happening because the populations of these countries are oppressed or even openly killed. There is usually some truth to that, but it is amplified. The people in these countries often suffer because of sanctions. They might experience shortages, hyperinflation, falling standards of living, and disintegrating infrastructure.
NGOs infiltrate these populations at the grassroots level. They spread propaganda about the greatness of the West and democracy and blame all the hardship that the population are experiencing on their government and its ideology. They use intelligence agencies and agent provocateurs to infiltrate protests, turning them into riots and sometimes uprisings. The media will exaggerate the extent of events, describe them as organic, and blame any loss of lives on the government’s forceful response to what they will claim are justified protests.
The goal of these covert operations is either regime change or societal decimation. This decision mostly depends on whether the country needs a functioning government for the Establishment elites to extract what they want from the country. For example, when the West forced regime change in Ukraine (i.e., Euromaidan Revolution). They needed a functioning government to take over so that they could use Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia.
Sometimes a functioning government is not necessary. This was the case with Syria when the Assad Government fell. A key benefit of the fall of the Assad Government was reduced Russian and Iranian influence in that region. Terrorism and mass killings are rampant in Syria. However, the people might benefit from reduced sanctions. Some countries fall because they control and import resources or their location is of strategic importance. For example, the Gaddafi Government fell in Libya so that the West could rapidly increase migration to Europe. It did not need a functioning government for that. Instability was desirable to stimulate the huge influx of migrants.
Donald Trump is unlike any leader the West has ever had. He is not a career politician. He is a businessperson and celebrity. He is sometimes brash and loud and shows little regard for political correctness. He often gushes praise on people he might have been insulting or threatening just hours earlier. He loves and appears almost addicted to the spotlight. He constantly praises and exaggerates everything he does. He seems like a bipolar narcissist. Many people do not like his unusual personality, but just as many warm to him because he is so different from any leader the US has ever had. His personality adds to his credibility as an anti-establishment figure.
Donald Trump has done a remarkable job at appearing as anti-establishment. He strongly opposes all the woke ideology. This includes abortion, mass immigration, climate change, diversity programmes, social justice initiatives, etc. He has claimed he would fix America’s health crisis and fight back against pharmaceutical companies’ exploitation of the people. He has claimed he would fight to protect freedom of speech and people’s liberties against the rise of censorship. He has claimed he would fight against corruption in politics (e.g., drain the swamp). He has claimed he strongly opposes intervention in other countries. He has claimed he supports America first. He has also claimed he is pro-military and desires to strengthen the US military. This is in terms of both practice and funding. He frequently talks about peace and peace through strength. He claimed he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine in a day as well as the war in Gaza before his inauguration.
What has added further strength to Donald Trump’s claim to be anti-establishment has been the Establishment’s attack on him. They rigged the 2020 Presidential Election against him. They put him on trial on charges they would not pursue with any other former president. They may have even been involved in his attempted assassination.
The combination of his unique personality, his anti-establishment talk, and the persecution he has faced from the Establishment has made him appealing to both people who are sick of the same Establishment politics as well as the more conservative Republican voters who are sick of the rise of woke ideology.
It was easy for Donald Trump to maintain the anti-establishment persona while he was out of the White House. He could not be tested. Once he became president, it became much harder. His first term was unspectacular, but he had less rhetoric to live up to, and there was the Covid-19 fiasco, which exposed him as an Establishment figure. The events between the two presidencies built him back up as an anti-establishment figure. Becoming elected would put this image in jeopardy if he did not follow through on his promises. I strongly believed he would not be allowed to win because of this problem. Instead, the Democratic Party let him win. They replaced candidate Joe Biden, who was showing signs of late-stage dementia, with his Vice President, Kamala Harris, who was very unpopular.
Donald Trump has followed through on his attack on woke ideology. He has shut down diversity, equity, and inequality (DEI) programmes in the Federal Government. He has managed to influence some major companies to roll back their DEI programmes. He has blocked federal funding for gender-reaffirming treatment. He has also taken action to stop males from participating in female divisions and categories of sports.
Donald Trump has taken action in stopping illegal immigration into the USA. Illegal border crossings have been reported to be at the lowest in decades (Axios). It is still unknown if these numbers will remain lower in the long run. The Democratic Party could easily reverse everything Trump has done.
Donald Trump has also targeted illegal immigrants within the USA. He has liberally deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to US cities to track and hunt down illegal immigrants. Their level of success is debatable. However, their presence is contributing to civil disorder.
ICE agents often dress in paramilitary-like attire, an intimidation tactic. ICE agents are frequently filmed aggressively apprehending suspects. The recent incidents of American citizens being killed by ICE agents have fuelled fear, anger, and even hatred towards the ICE agents and Donald Trump. Inflammatory comments from Democrat politicians have further fuelled tension, and ‘left’ media have amplified their response. In Minneapolis, this has resulted in widespread protests, which in some cases have become violent.
Mass illegal immigration is the perceived problem (I would argue it is a source of many other domestic problems). The Establishment Democratic Party has enabled this and the problems that it causes. Donald Trump is using this problem to justify the use of force. The Democrats fight back to cause unrest, which Trump will address with more force and authoritarianism, which his base appear to be mostly backing. Increased authoritarianism is a long-run goal of the Establishment.
Another key aspect of Donald Trump’s presidency has been his penchant for trade tariffs. His initial argument was that he wanted to place tariffs on countries that placed tariffs on US goods. The claimed intention was that this would force other countries to reduce their tariffs on US goods. Once these countries did that, Donald Trump would not impose the tariffs, or he would impose a significantly smaller tariff.
If this approach led to reduced tariffs on American exports. That would be good for American businesses. They would become more competitive in overseas markets. However, this does not appear to have happened. In some cases, Donald Trump has backed down and not imposed tariffs, and in other cases, he has persisted in imposing them. Trade tariffs are typically imposed to protect and help local businesses by making imports less competitive. Trump has imposed tariffs for reasons unrelated to trade. These reasons could be political or even personal.
Importers pay tariffs to the Government. They may choose to bear the full brunt of the tariff, or they could pass some or all of it onto the consumer. It is also possible that the exporter could choose to lower their selling price. Therefore, the importer may not need to pay much more, as the lower price paid offsets what they pay in tariffs. In essence, the exporter is paying the tariff on behalf of the importer by accepting a lower price. This would support Trump’s argument that overseas companies are paying the tariffs to the US.
In reality, the outcomes of tariffs are complicated. They are largely determined by elasticity of demand and supply. Donald Trump’s aims are contradictory. He claims he wants to raise revenue from exporters. This implies that supply is inelastic. Exporters are unable to reduce quantities produced or find alternative markets. Therefore, they are forced to lower their prices, thus absorbing the tariffs. He also claims he wants to grow American businesses. This outcome would imply demand was elastic. Consumers would switch to domestic brands, and imports would fall. A fall in imports would mean tariffs would not generate much revenue.
In reality, Donald Trump’s tariffs have managed to generate a significant increase in tax revenue. Customs duties in the 2025 financial year increased by 250% from the previous financial year (Committee for Responsible Federal Budget). However, American consumers and companies are bearing the brunt of this tax burden. They have paid up to 96% of this burden. In 2025, the average US household has had to pay an extra US$1,000 in tax because of these tariffs (News Nation Now).
This is a huge transfer of wealth from the people to the Government. The impact on small businesses could also be huge if the higher prices force them to become uncompetitive and unable to survive. Big Business can survive short-term higher costs and has the ability to switch to less tariffed suppliers. They also stand to gain the most from tax breaks enabled by the tariff revenue. Not many of Trump’s voter base would have wanted this, but Trump has been somewhat successful in maintaining the lie that these tariffs are making the majority of Americans better off.
Overall, it appears Donald Trump has remained reasonably consistent with his approach to domestic issues. His reluctance to release the Epstein Files has caused anger among some of his supporters. However, his actions overseas are causing the greatest stir this year. He ordered the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He threatened to take Greenland from Denmark. He threatens to attack Iran. Just before the New Year, he ordered the bombing of Nigeria. This appears like extraordinary aggression from a president who campaigned on not intervening in the affairs of other countries or attempting regime change.
As mentioned earlier in the post, the US has a long history of intervening in other countries. They have always done so based on a contrived benevolent narrative. Donald Trump has not bothered to justify his actions in such a way. He ordered the kidnapping of President Maduro and immediately and openly pursued Venezuela’s oil reserve for American oil companies. This move could also be argued to be strategic, as it is to the detriment of both Russia and China, who are also pursuing control over this oil. However, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are not easy to access, and the oil is difficult to refine so that it can become usable. It is possible that Trump was not aware of this, but we can be sure the Establishment was aware of these difficulties.
The Establishment were happy for Maduro to be kidnapped because it fits their narrative that Trump is a tyrant and has no regard for international law. The Establishment also desires instability in Central and South America. It is likely that Trump will follow with attacks on other countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and even Mexico. This instability is likely to cause mass migration towards the USA. A future Democrat President would likely allow them to flow into the country. The instability could also pave the way for bigger plans that require the narrative that nation states cannot function by themselves. This narrative could even include the USA.
On a strange positive note, Trump’s actions have not led to a war with Venezuela, nor have they resulted in regime change. It has only caused a leadership change within the same regime.
Donald Trump has threatened to take Greenland away from Denmark, the European Union (EU) and possibly NATO. Why does he want the US to take Greenland? It will expand US-controlled territory; it looks big on a map. Greenland has vast reserves of rare earth minerals.
Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have established a framework for a deal that will allow the US unrestricted long-term military access and possibly unlimited access to extract minerals from Greenland. Owning Greenland is not part of this deal. Denmark has no say in this arrangement. We could strongly argue that Denmark, along with most other European countries, is a vassal state to the EU and NATO.
The Establishment are happy with Trump’s aggression towards Europe over Greenland. It reinforces the narrative that he strives to be a dictator and has Fascist tendencies. It also serves the purpose of destabilising Europe and fracturing NATO. It appears Europe has been designated to fall. It is going to fall because of the prolonged crises it is experiencing. This is being sped up by mass migration and could be put into overdrive with a war with Russia if Europe is not supported by the US. Greenland could also eventually become part of a larger North American block of countries.
Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran. The main reason given to do so is regime change. The main implied reason for the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran was regime change. The Iranian regime managed to survive. Trump claimed the war was a success based on the destruction of nuclear facilities that may or may not have contained enriched uranium.
One of the most popular narratives is that Trump wants to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with Reza Pahlavi, who would act as a US puppet. This would enable the US to access Iran’s vast resources while cutting off China. Donald Trump has not openly advocated for Reza Pahlavi to become the new puppet leader of Iran. It is also possible he would support the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MEK), which actively seeks to cooperate with Trump’s administration.
The Establishment desire access to Iran’s resources, and this could be an important motivation. I believe this is unlikely because forced regime change in Iran would be incredibly difficult and close to impossible with just airstrikes. If the Ayatollah were killed, someone else would replace him from his government, i.e., from his own regime, therefore not actually a regime change.
To have a reasonable chance of regime change would require a ground invasion, which Trump has expressed no interest in doing. When the airstrikes fail to achieve regime change, the US and the rest of the West will continue to apply economic pressure through whatever means they have. The Iranian people will suffer tremendously from all of these actions. This is likely to lead to another wave of migration towards Europe.
The Establishment seeks destabilisation. If Iran is bombed by the US, they are likely to close the Strait of Hormuz. This will cause oil prices to soar. This will deepen the existing crises in Europe and the US but will affect China the most because it is heavily dependent on oil from the region. This could escalate into a much bigger conflict.
Iran is also likely to strike back against US bases and vessels. This has the potential to be devastating. The Establishment could use this to gain support for a prolonged war with Iran. This could be used to drag in perennially loyal countries such as the UK. Iran could strike Israel in retaliation to the US strikes. This could trigger a devastating war for both sides. In my post War or Peace and Death of Nations, I discuss the theory that some within the Establishment aim to destroy Israel.
Another interesting move by Donald Trump is the creation of the Board of Peace. The board was initially established to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. It now has evolved to have a much broader purpose. It is focusing on ‘peace’ in general, which, in theory, could extend to anywhere in the world.
A popular narrative is that the Board of Peace is aiming to become a right-wing alternative to the United Nations (UN). This narrative is probably accurate. Most of the board members identify as right-wing, conservative or anti-establishment. The UN is technically not left-wing but openly supports Establishment ideology that predominantly aligns with left-wing ideology. This serves to potentially further deepen the rift between the so-called left and right sides of the Establishment.
A year in, and Donald Trump’s presidency is beginning to make much more sense. He has done in a year what might have taken typical Establishment leaders many times longer. He has done it in ways that would never have been tolerated by any other leader as well. Hence making his election quite important. Instead of the Nobel Prize, maybe Donald Trump should be awarded an Oscar for his performance as president.
Trump’s actions may still have come at quite a cost. His Make America Great Again (MAGA) base appears fractured. The extent of the damage is difficult to know at this point. This means that Donald Trump has most likely lost his claim as anti-establishment and is no longer an effective controlled opposition figure for those disenchanted with the system. This leaves a vacuum that will be difficult to fill. There is a possibility that organic opposition to the Establishment could emerge. There might not be time for this to occur if the war between the ‘left’ and ‘right’ occurs soon.
Donald Trump has ramped up the tension between the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the US and potentially the whole world. The British political wing of the Establishment has manoeuvred itself far more sleekly. I believe Brexit (the UK leaving the EU) was never meant to happen. The referendum was supposed to kill the public’s desire to leave the EU. The Establishment arrogantly underestimated the public’s desire to regain sovereignty of their country.
The Establishment responded by attempting to stifle Brexit, which was used to divide the country for years on this matter. Years later, the UK formally left the EU. However, the UK Government did very little to separate itself from the EU. This also meant the Conservative Party was stuck in power to deliver something that was supposed to resemble Brexit. This put the UK out of kilter with Europe, which was pushing so-called ‘left/liberal’ objectives. This caused the Conservative Party to become a quasi ‘left-wing’ party. This loss of identity was one of the main reasons it was decimated at the 2024 election. This enabled the Labour Party, the designated party for the ‘left’, to take power.
Despite winning only a paltry five seats at the 2024 General Election, Reform UK was becoming the perceived new party for the ‘right’. Party leader Nigel Farage had closely aligned himself with Donald Trump. Thus, appearing to be an anti-establishment figure. Division in the UK continued to grow. It reached a new level after the Southport murders. Protests broke out in several cities. It appeared agent provocateurs infiltrated them. They were able to use the volatile environment to cause widespread riots. The new Prime Minister stoked the tensions further by calling all the protesters far right. Nigel Farage distanced himself from events but was blamed by some media outlets and ‘left’ influencers on social media for stoking the riots. This was the beginning of the Reform Party’s surge in the polls.
Reform UK dropped their position as the anti-establishment party and began to emerge as the new party of the right and conservatives. Tommy Robinson emerged as the new controlled opposition leader of the anti-establishment mob. Unlike Farage and Trump, Tommy Robinson does not intend to pursue political office. Therefore, his role as anti-establishment does not need to be challenged. This is probably a key learning from the Trump experiment in the US.
The anger between the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ factions of society continues to grow. Much of this anger is directed at the Labour-led government. Anger can become a serious problem if there is no apparent mechanism for change. The ‘democratic’ process and the rise of Reform deal with that aspect. The Labour Party could easily bury a party of just five Members of Parliament. The easiest method is to ignore them. Instead, all the Labour leaders give Reform UK as much attention as possible. They are mentioned in almost every speech. They have officially designated them as the only party that can stop them. This pushes people to be patient and wait for elections rather than taking action themselves. The rise of GB News (pro-Reform UK current affairs channel) has also helped Reform UK grow.
Anger can also be a problem if the public believes that the government is deliberately sabotaging the country. The Labour Party have gone out of their way to appear as incompetent as possible. They are exposed on an almost weekly basis for a new scandal. They have made a point of continuously changing their position on almost everything they propose, which creates the impression of indecisiveness and incompetence. GB News presenters and guests make it a point to emphasise the incompetence of the government. Anger about incompetence is desirable because it gives people hope that a competent government, which they can elect in the next General Election, can solve the problems. This keeps public aggression directed between the people supporting so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ ideologies directed at each other rather than at the Government.
Reform UK has continued to reassert itself as the new ‘right/conservative’ party by bringing in a swarm of former and current Conservative Party Members of Parliament. Thus, leaving voters with little choice but to vote for them if they want the Labour Party removed from government.
The Reform Party has a key advantage over the original Conservative Party. It is more centralised; Nigel Farage has close to absolute control over the party. He is protected by his small group of close friends. It is easier for the Establishment to maintain control over a strongly centralised party than a decentralised one or independent candidates. The left-right march in the UK will inevitably continue.
Western Establishments are not confined to one country or the West as a whole. Their power and influence span the world. Nations are becoming a hindrance to its expansion and dominance. Big business, banks and financial institutions, the media, and religious institutions (e.g., Islam) are thriving without borders. Currently only traditionally structured governments rely on borders. This can be changed very quickly.
The EU has shown that an overarching government can control dozens of countries. These countries are vassal states that could become territories within a broader European framework. The same can be done with the Americas. Donald Trump has mentioned Canada becoming part of the USA. Eventually, there could be an overarching government for all of North America, which could include the USA, Canada, Mexico, and Greenland. This could expand to include Central and South America. Even the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey could merge to form one large Islamic kingdom. This could merge with Europe once it has become sufficiently Islamified.
The two main objectives of the elites are wealth and power. This can be more easily achieved through centralisation. Replacing nation states with blocks of territories achieves greater centralisation. This would be centralisation in terms of governance, religion, culture, social, and finance. A one-world Government is unlikely. The power structure at the top would become too narrow. This would result in elites turning on each other. International bodies can perform and are already functioning as proxy elements of a World Government.
The extent of volatility in the world is ever increasing. We could be on the verge of major wars in Europe and the Middle East. Many Western countries are edging closer to civil unrest. Civil war could even break out in some of them. Western countries are in grave danger and may not exist for much longer. The UK is falling fast, and the Establishment appears to have locked it in to fail.
The USA is also in grave danger, but I believe there is some hope still left for the people. The American people are incredibly resilient and innovative and have an insatiable desire for freedom. Donald Trump was inserted into politics because a significant proportion of the American people had grown frustrated with the Establishment politics that never resulted in any positive changes for them.
Donald Trump is increasingly becoming exposed as an Establishment figure. It is difficult to know how the people will respond. It is possible some states will find their way before others. The US political system still has elements of decentralisation. The Establishment are using Trump to reduce this decentralisation of power. They desire the transfer of power from the states to the executive branch of the US Government. The people will need to find a way, and soon.
I am writing a trilogy of books titled Sapien Loop. The first in the series is Sapien Loop: End of an Era and the second is Sapien Loop: Frozen in Time. I published both of these books as ebooks on Amazon, and I have posted completed chapters to my 
This story is based on the fictional planet Sapia and its sole country, Sapey. Sapey is portrayed as a form of utopia for all its citizens. No poverty. No war. Almost no crime. Opportunities for all.
This was enough for most citizens, but not all. In one of the small regions, some of the citizens had become discontent. They felt something important was missing in their lives. Their discontent did not go unnoticed. Some of the Sapey elite wanted to weaponise this discontent to gain more power. This created more chaos than they anticipated. This led to further widespread social unrest.
On top of the chaos, ambition and greed provoked another enemy. This enemy was on a mission to settle both new and old scores.
This story is based six years after the original story. The Downs Region is still suffering from a serious health crisis caused by the contaminated water. The main characters are desperately trying to find a cure for the illness that has been caused by the water.
One of the main characters has discovered frozen humanoids in hidden chambers. It appears they have been frozen for a long time. These chambers connect to a vast network of tunnels. While exploring the tunnels, one of the frozen humanoids disappears. It appears he has been stolen.
The story takes a step back in time to tell the story of the frozen humanoids. How and why were they frozen? This part of the story also explains the fall of ancient Sapey and the birth of the Sapiens. Can those from the past be able to coexist with those from the present?
