The only difference is that Tolkien (or whichever author you choose - Rowling would serve equally well for this example) never makes the claim that the events they describes relate in any literal way to “reality”.

Lets say I write my own account, disagreeing arbitrarily on major or minor points with that outlined in the article you’ve linked to. I publish it as fact, received from an unverifiable source. That should make my story equally as convincing as any other, (including the Bible, incidentally), but that surely that doesn’t mean that it relates to reality. There are an infinite number of accounts of reality, past present and future, such that any account which cannot substantiate itself is surely as infinitely unlikely as any other. Hence: flying spaghetti monster and his noodley appendages.

But, specific to this particular account: what does it matter if you believe there is an “Ashtar command” or “Time Lord council that sometimes hangs out in starships”? Or that the cycle of “Ra” lasts approximately 25,000 years? What use does that information have? Unless these messages contain real instructions like “start wearing tinfoil hats” or “males, stop wearing thongs, as it angers the gods”, even if they *do* reflect reality, what use are they beyond fodder for the imagination? My point is that, even in the infinite sea of accounts of reality, this one doesn’t seem to even promote any particular behaviour, so what use is it at all? It’s like being told a wonderful, dramatic account of a fight between two civilisations, both contained within a sealed matchbox in the storyteller’s palm. You can’t open the box, you can’t inspect it’s contents - only marvel at the tale which is woven by our collective imagination. But surely you don’t believe the storyteller.

And so why should the notions promoted by this messages be indulged by other rational people? You probably wouldn’t trust someone with any kind of important task if they believed that Ian McKellan really *was* a wizard. Well, you may, but only if you were reasonably certain that their belief in Gandalf wasn’t going to interfere or influence their completion of that task. Just because the linked article’s account of reality isn’t labelled by the author as fiction, why should we treat belief in it (or any other supernatural account of reality, for that matter) any differently?

Hmm.

Treat other people like you would want them to treat you. It’s a good philosophy that has been produced not only by society (or, if anyone really insists, “by design”), but it’s also - unlike knowledge of “a space-time overlap with the ‘Higher Evolution’” - effective in a scientifically-demonstrable way. Game theory calls this strategy “tit-for-tat” and it regularly wins in AI tournaments AND real animal societies (see: social grooming). But, importantly, this behaviour doesn’t require support from transdimensional aliens to exist, or to motivate it’s continued adoption.

So, I suppose: what does it matter if the aliens are coming or not? Just be nice to each other, and everything will work out either way.

Now, where did I leave my Elohim communicator?