Fear put us in this mess. It won't be enough to get us out.
My goal is to present an opinionated counter-argument to a growing narrative in the UAP space. Below is a small sample of such examples:
This isn't to target the thread authors or the posts themselves, but the content and fear-driven narrative (specifically the directionality) particularly from Elizondo & Delonge's corners of the issue.
Broadly speaking this narrative includes or alludes to:
UAP = threat
Unchecked covert invasion possibility
Corrupt but humanity-first MIC
Incoming deadlines with devastating consequences
These are the 4 main presentations.
Call them Delonge Doomers, but it's really important we start evaluating this narrative in the preseason. Because full disclosure is inevitable, but will you know it when you see it?
Will an abridged, incomplete release make the situation worse?
Be advised I'm speaking in a personal capacity and not on anyone/entities behalf. As always, speculation is like entertainment and should be consumed responsibly.
Over the past 16 years, I've had the opportunity to meet or hear from a diverse cohort of movers and shakers on our planet. I don't want to waste too much time on this, but these are your generals/admirals, defense sector insiders, eastern establishment journalists, cold war legends, Hollywood-drawn spooks, sons and daughters of powerful families, beltway bigshots, and well-sourced government officials. You've seen them on TV, you've read their articles, you've suffered their policy. A few of them you might find particularly relevant for their service in divisions like MIT's Lincoln Labs, at Pine Gap, at Skunk/PhantomWorks, or for their service at WSMR, Wright-Pat, or their “space-related” positions at the SES-level in the Pentagon. Some even had director or base commander status. Originally out of boredom, I've asked some very pointed questions, some of which resulted in a spectrum of tame to terrifying responses. Fear became a tell that can lead us all to interesting places. Not always the best places.
I've experienced personal threats, hacked emails, and (at least) one break-in that I'm aware of as a result.
Humbly, I've connected some dots and I would like to share the net assessment of these interactions as they pertain to the ongoing bureaucratic disclosure in Washington, which you will find at the very bottom of this intimidating journey in text. This is a 30,000 foot critique that includes the phenomena but mainly pertains to the MIC. I believe you need to understand one, to understand the other. And principally, you need to understand the MIC so we can collectively learn to separate it from the phenomena when the time comes.
And that time may be coming very soon.
I will not be providing any coveted credentials or any kind of token of authority, and there are no NDA's involved. This is an as-is exercise and I believe the argument is sufficient on it's own.
I'm here to give a perspective on what went wrong, and how we can avoid their mistakes. My Eisenhower moment, so to speak. You just have to get through my stolen valor academic vomit. Apologies in advance, this is a long discussion made as short as possible.
Before we get into the cat and mouse threat that Delonge and his "special advisors" catastrophize over, we have to talk biases.
1. Washington Programming
I once spoke to a former member of the NSC about American biases at high levels of the USG and its influence on national interests. This was shortly after the Surge, so we all had a very candid lessons-learned sit down.
He gave me a framework or bias matrix to understand Washington. He learned this while working the Bush administration and it's relationship with the intelligence and defense community, which later became an issue of controversy in the post 9/11 age. He tried to crack this bias matrix to save our efforts in Iraq, and discovered some uncomfortable truths. It’s been my best guide for the past 16 years.
It goes something like this. There is a unique and troubling dance between policy makers and the natsec arena. American policymakers, who should be risk managers in a pure statecraft sense, tend to submit to over-optimism. They attempt things that 7/10 times would fail. Meanwhile, in the natsec arena, there is a deep sense of risk aversion which usually expresses itself as fear-derived paranoia.
It is the collusion of these two biases that have led us to the proverbial edge on the phenomenon and the associated matter of special projects. Everything is connected. Foreign policy, technology, phenomenon, bureaucracy, everything. To jump the gun a bit, disclosure is not about NHI. Because you can't disclose NHI without everything coming with it. Schumer's Controlled Disclosure, a Bureaucratic Disclosure, is a legal effort to manage the coming NHI/SP flood.
But by the end of the legacy reveal, it just becomes step one in a multi-stage decision to put an end to the age of secrets and to transition into an age of responsibility (with the Republic or Union intact).
This transition directly attacks most of the compartmentalized military and intelligence community. To get one age, you have to defeat or unwind the other. There is no other way. To "save the world" we quite literally have to excise it of the cancerous secrecy growth.
1.1 Paranoia Privilege
Through engagements with counter intelligence SME, I can say with absolute confidence that the military and intelligence community is highly schizophrenic, especially in private. It's in the business of professional paranoia. Most would assume this. Take the average person and birth him on the other side of an imaginary line and suddenly he could be concocting your worst nightmare. They have built entire organizations around potential, future, or invisible enemies. In game theory terms, they always play hawk over dove; even when studies in statecraft have shown dove to be a more rational first choice in Clausewitzian or economic scenarios. Expressed individually, this would be labelled a mental illness if you played hawk for 40 hours a week, or at the very least not an exercise to be supported by billions in tax dollars with little accountability. The soundbite is that there will never be enough "intelligence" for these people to overcome fear. Never. I know New Agers have elaborate theories about manifestations and so forth, but if anyone is really pulling that off, its these guys, manifesting their worst fears like Steph Curry manifests a three pointer.
Ironically, these groups pathologize and patronize the public over their belief in conspiracy theories or imagined threats and yet are equal or greater contributors in this regard. Theirs is valid while yours is not. No one does schizophrenia quite like they do. In Chatham house (rule) events I have heard a countless number of "we have x you wouldn't believe", "they said he died of x but I think it was y", "you should check out xyz, wink wink.” And this from public figures with Wikipedia pages longer than anything we wrote in high school, and from insiders who slither through the contract task force carousel but make terrible poker players. I have heard people with Netflix tv series based around them accuse other people (with comparable autobiographies) of foul play and then panic about "mics picking things up." And yes, free alcohol is almost always served at events like these.
It's all so entertaining until you get the feeling it perpetuates inevitable outcomes. There's always something to fear, there's always a conspiracy of power. Except this time, it's socially acceptable talk filed away as national security. It's one of the great privilege’s of power to have all your fears, personal or otherwise, upgraded to national security relevant levels.
And it becomes difficult to sort between those that are fairly predicted and those they force into being via some collective paranoia response that reflexively draws responses from other adversarial agents across "invisible lines." In AI, this is called a hallucination. Where adversarial prompts or poor data populations trick an AI into making a statement it's certain of but factually impossible. The IC doesn't understand or try to understand the truth, it just has "confidence levels" on any claim, any scenario, any possibility. The broad natsec arena, in particular, has become AI-like. Especially due to its reliance on remote sensing, big data recency biases, and it's uncritical approach to conflict spiral mentalities ("any butterfly could create a butterfly effect, so we must control all butterflies"). They use this probabilistic uncertainty as a crutch to filter everything through a fear-based mindset. Through fear, they hoard this big pile of information, and process it entirely through that bias into knowledge as they need it. They are programming neutral information into their twisted frame of reference. This hoarding of knowledge, and of the pure big data information sets, is the sin and sickness we need to solve. Mellon, in particular, is always harping on about these big data sets for good reason. From a scientific perspective, you can see where this develops into a cataclysmic problem. The guys with the best instruments hoarding the most amount of data? And they swear oaths not to tell you based on classified conditionals? Does that sound like Enlightenment era values to you?
In a better society, scientists in the public and private sector would see this data first, and their only oath (besides the Hippocratic) would be to open it up to the world for further scrutiny. That is, scientists who can't be threaten or compelled by the experts on the scientific application of organized violence.
Without this right to objectively observe reality in real-time from the best vantage points, our ability to survive as a collective organism, for instance, is weakened.
So if natsec has hallucinations about over-pessimistic outcomes, while policymakers suffer the inverse (hallucinations about over-optimistic outcomes), how does it synergize into something worse?
1.2 Risk Management
To reiterate, I have not met anyone influential in the natsec arena who, while in a private context, did not espouse some of the fringiest beliefs and fears—the likes of which you would only find on the extremes of the internet. It gets bad when you consider their status and platform. They are defacto lobbyists. There are Beltway veterans who will often admit that a think tank is simply mechanized lobbying. Every administration since Clinton has been staffed in key slots by think tanks or consulting firms, usually a single entity per administration that conveniently comes into being a few years prior. Even ambassadors become international lobbyists, some of them temporarily more powerful than the elected President himself on certain issues. I have had friends in State and at foreign affairs departments all over the English speaking world. Many went in as patriots and came out seriously demoralized.
These people are paid (or profiting), protected, and pushed to take "schizoposting" to a whole nother level, through methods most professionals with productive networking under their belt would implicitly recognize. Speaking plainly, a policymakers DMs are filled with conversations from natsec and its derivative web of consulting and finance. Only those DMs came from people who had to spend 75k on dinners and wait 6 months in line for their shot. You get even less of a shot. You should be allocated a greater share of your policymakers time, but you are not. Instead, your leaders get a constant dose of fear and uncertainty, instead of the certainty that arises from grassroots reactions and concerns.
You might notice that amongst the politicians interested in transparency, they reference their aids pushing them on it. Aids on the hill have become difference makers because of their competency in technology against the average geriatric actor. Politicians are getting older and older, but young aids come in all the time. It's a revolutionary factor. They are more connected to social media versus industry and private interests. Lobbying hasn't completely captured the aids. They are your way in, for those that want to be a part of a grassroots collective year round influence campaign. We saw this with WSB, it remains to be seen what platform or board will be the next in line.
With intel products and privileged word-of-mouth imprinting being the only tools given to excessive risk taking policymakers, they no longer act as the idealized risk manager under proper statecraft. The result are foreign experiments with no audience-approved endstate and plenty of delayed collateral accounting. The meme about socialized costs rings true. This is the cultural and structural bias at play in these types of social organizations. Two unsustainable extremes. On one hand, a person imagines the worst enemy, on the other, a person imagines a decision free of consequence.
When you combine those mindsets with legal protections, near unlimited resources, and a pathological anxiety to hoard more knowledge, you reach an unsustainable level of affairs. Accountability fades as secrecy management grows. Organizational inertia resists the timely implementation of reform. You become the A&E Hoarders of life changing secrets. A better Propaganda Due, this time with a "chosen one" mission and the flags of superpowers for capes. It's worse than Eisenhower predicted.
Many of our leaders, and even the well-traveled Davosian folks, are very serious about the health of our planet and sustainable use of its resources, and yet have built and continue to justify incredibly unsustainable practices in all other areas. Extreme risk taking has taken our planet and its people to the brink, and now, with a rotting coverup rivaling the dark ages, the professionally paranoid are afraid of letting the people discover sustainability and responsibility as a way of life. This disorientation is disturbing, and regular people are trying to find ways to express this discomfort through ancient political highways with intentionally misleading traffic laws. The spectacle of political sports is a pollution that blows downwind from a jointly institutionalized marriage of paranoia and recklessness. This is why, when we reach full disclosure, bipartisanship will magically increase. It will reach the natural and healthy state it always should've been at. If you believe in unity as a goal, you need to spread the virtue of disclosure and truth seeking.
This practice of hoarding knowledge creates the true line between the world we should have and the world as it is. It's the real national border, the real political divide. People speak about economic inequality, and rightly so, but knowledge inequality is far more perverse. The top .01% hoarding the secrets of the universe? Life, death, and everything in-between?
And how do we know there aren't others with similar mindsets manipulating these gatekeepers against our best interests?
If you're a diplomat with a lifelong TBI from an AHI in Cuba, you might be regretting your commitment to compartmentalization and its consequences on your personal security. Even worse, not knowing that it could be reversed with technology hidden right under your nose. Nor knowing why the attack happened in the first place. Many of these diplomats had their families, and even children, targeted with technology that creates microcavitation-induced traumatic brain injuries.
It is believed that many (not all) of these instances are related to Russian operations. You’re familiar with the American MIC or so-called Deep State. But what about the other equivalents? The Russian or Chinese MIC? Deep State?
What the hell are they up to?
The Havana Syndrome gives an idea. A very, very small introduction.
And how many times have you heard similar stories from "crazed" UFO lore. And especially through the Cold War. Non-ionizing radiation is not supposed to cause major harm to the human body. Could there be fields of science entirely classified? If so, why? And by who? And who get’s to use the weapons derived from them?
What would lead a spook to target the brain of an innocent child with an exotic weapon? Against a civilian?
How many times would you have to overdose on fear and paranoia to hallucinate that as a good thing?
Here's where we get into the Delonge doom and gloom vector.
2. Threat Relations
This becomes especially problematic when a near-pear or greater power is involved. An adversary would correctly identify paranoia and excessive fear-driven strategy as vulnerabilities, as gigantic veins to inject or project their influence into. Meanwhile, exploiting the consequence-free mindsets of our risk managers to further destabilize planetary cohesion or to further empower the fear vectors penetrating the military and intel community. A document that may or may not be authentic leaked, discussing the immersion capability of an enemy to affect the CHI of our policymakers. A rational but emotionally balanced mind could properly face that challenge, but a paranoid, spiraling mind (and accompanying organization) could do serious collateral damage. Collateral damage like harming innocents to compel a target.
And they could get away with it too.
At least you've heard of the patriot act, what powers are granted in the classified annexes that manage threats greater than desert pastoralists and engineering dropouts?
What were their Gulf Wars?
2.1 The Threat Theory
To channel the counter intelligence intelligentsia, lets theorycraft an example enemy fit for a Roswell reality.
In Star Trek, Stargate, Dark Skies, Third Wave, Dark City, etc, there are accounts of a largely covert and invasive hivemind-like adversary that uses parasitic conquest as a form of civilizational evolution. The Borg, the Hive, the Goald, the Gua, the Swarm, the Strangers, etc. One could only wonder why this theme became so popular in late 80s to early 90s American UFO science fiction.
Here's a small, recent sample from a show creator.
They even made their contemporary return in Delonge's SeKret Machines and the god-awful MiB International.
The cultural takeaway is that these villains are as common to UFO fantasy as elves are to Tolkien fantasy.
I will suggest, without evidence, that you consider this generalized adversary to be the one they allude to. And that you ignore the remaining cultural mythos of grey skin, green skin, evil space AI, synthetic whatever. Just set the costumes aside and focus on the nature of the threat in this scenario, and not the presentation.
Again: a crafty, covert, and parasitic threat run by a hivemind.
Whatever the truth, it would certainly be the perfect enemy to exploit our current cultural horseshoe of paranoia and recklessness platforming the MIC. In the sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet, human fear creates their worst enemy, an egregore born from machines. In a universe teeming with life, you might not have to create this enemy for it to be naturally attracted to your specific brand of fear. Like a mosquito attracted to warm and red. And if you spend a lot of time wearing red to look tough, or hurting people until they bleed red, the bug will definitely come looking for you.
Now, the goal isn't to convert you into their fear-repressed brain state. We can solve problems throughout the continuum of conflict without hammers or sleepless nights. The animal kingdom is filled with creepy crawlies that invade our space all the time. With the exception of Australians, we don't launch wars on invasive or irritating species. Mosquitos are nearly invisible, all think the same, and target your lifeforce. Sometimes, you get deadly diseases. Technically, they've killed many humans, more than terrorism all together.
Yet there’s no patriot act for mosquitos. Not even a classified one.
We understand that there are a couple of cheap & basic tricks to protect yourself, places to avoid, and through reasonable collective action, we can help protect those who can't yet protect themselves through the gift of education (the sharing of this knowledge). But this is because its all out in the open, literally the data and knowledge from centuries of transparent and collaborative science and discussion, and we don't allow people who are super paranoid of mosquitos to dictate to all the rest of us how we should interact with nature. "The secrets of the deadly mosquito can't be trusted with the common man, we'll need to create a stinky onion of coverups & a toxic umbrella of special programs to protect people from the terror of these mass murderers."
Currently, we don't have access to mosquito repellant, and the rotten onion and toxic umbrella chemicals are making us sick too. You're not allowed to know of the mosquito, you're not allowed to learn how to protect yourself, you're not allowed to know what your taxpayer dollars are doing to combat the mosquito, you're not allowed to know how other dollars are generated to combat the mosquito. You are not allowed to slowly and naturally adjust to the reality of these mosquitos. To develop a high morale and a way of life that disincentives their attraction. These are all the rights taken from you by heroic extrajudicial carveouts willing to give your children brain damage. This deception is a crime, if true, that they would never be forgiven for. Which, if you’re paranoid and powerful, convinces you to double down on your ways. And all of sudden, the incentive to "beat" the mosquitos drops, doesn't it?
There’s a sickening scene in Xfiles, where the trifold flag is presented to the alien colonists. Let’s hope fiction is not the only way to stomach the story.
2.2 The Risky Response
If it all sounds stupid, that's because it is. Now some of you might be thinking mosquitos alone are too weak or characterized of an example. After all, the invasions we're familiar with always involve some capital city getting blown up or a geopolitical element involving our invisible lines. So let's try a more familiar fear extreme. Way down the line, a legacy program whistleblower might tell you that the space mosquito secretly controls the princelings of China, or that Putin's brain trust are mosquitomen that wouldn't clear a TSA metal detector. At first glance, you might think, "thank God our nation gives spooks enough power to protect us."
But it's the second glance that's important.
If our adversaries were near-omnipotent by scientific capability but limited in overt influence by rules of engagement, than the CURRENT STATUS QUO would be most beneficial to their interests, if not entirely dependent on it. A hierarchy of secrecy, run by the most paranoid, defended by the most reckless. A perfect playground for subtle predators. And you would start by corrupting the strategists themselves, the professions responsible for developing long term plans. Because in our fear based world, its the guy that makes all the plans that you depend on the most. And especially the guys running the most powerful militaries in the world.
Where, and specifically how, this penetration may have occurred is the subject of another article. The current reality is the priority.
The real threat in all of this is if that the above legacy system persists as a kind of trauma imprint that keeps feeding itself even if the mosquitos are swatted away. It's effectively a ghost in the machine, driven by a scourge that may not even be there anymore, or maybe a scourge that they need you to think is real. If it died, they would make its ghost the egregore. Remember, there is no truth anymore to them, just levels of confidence. And today, they might be more afraid of you than the distant mosquito. You're pretty damn real, we can confirm that with high confidence. You + angry might be an even scarier egregore. Medium confidence at least. "We were so bad at national security, its now a national security threat for you to find out how bad we really were," James Clapper, abridged. The last I heard from him, he was complaining about how invasive IC background checks had gotten after a family member joined up. An invasive system he helped build.
But it's interesting how things have settled into place since the 40s, with the rise of a military-scientific industrial complex and an overannexed foreign policy the average citizen no longer understands. The Complex gets more complicated while the citizen, cut off from a realtime-relevant education, gets more detached. That sounds like the Mona Lisa of national security problems and its largely self-inflicted. Painted by the poorly chosen.
3. Responsibility
So it's worth thinking about what national security means to you. Too often, unelected or unaccountable forces define this term for you.
They let fear be their program to manage trauma, and so people, just like nations, suffer from compartmentalization of memory instead of a sustainable form of integration. This is how we got a society that is literally a post traumatic stress disorder with a flag. This is how we got contemporary China, who feeds off its century of humiliation to justify every possible fear against integration with the west to its national audience. That has now become the biggest problem delineating Space Operation Command's "Dark Skies" future and its "Star Trek" future.
It's SpOC now, by the way. They insisted.
Make no mistake, there is a crisis trying to make its way into our affairs. It could be biological, environmental, financial, or conflict-oriented. Whatever ghost works best. It could even be all four. But it is the final option that is the greatest risk, entailing the most suffering. Your part in this is clearer than you think. Under no other condition should you accept ANY major conflict. This means saying no to escalation, even if morally justified, without full disclosure occurring first. A full disclosure is not a revelation about "1 NHI civilization" or "China with inter-system vehicles." It is not just legacy, it's contemporary, it's current. There are 40+ whistleblowers marching into Washington, that's just to start. A whistleblower for every decade, every program, every major hidden event. It's gonna take a lot of them, probably much more than that. It has to be a full-spectrum integration, a process where the past, present, and future of humanity will no longer be hidden by any state or organization.
For instance, this might come from events outside of their control. Or the release of records by an outside force, one not willing to wait for the USG to spend decades sanitizing documents. Maybe this is happening sometime between 2026 and 2027.
3.1 Potential Futures
Though often discussed, I can't provide any additional confirmation about the alleged 2026 to 2027 major contact window. That said, I don't believe there will be mass landings. I do believe that any formal communication will not involve recognition of nation-states as representative of the planet and it's population. I also believe the only major human-social formality to be recognized would be the Artemis Accords and formerly unacknowledged representatives from that agreement would take lead in the handshake procedure, so to speak.
Now, speculation aside, the only additional info I can provide about that alleged timeline, are 3 points:
I can say that the MIC knows that a massive technological revolution will occur in our lifetimes (specifically under 20 years, dated to 2017) and will put the industrial age transition to shame.
I can say that senior elements within Raytheon intended for civilian space travel and space science to explode in this decade.
I can say that economic upheaval is expected to occur before this tech revolution. And various preparations are in play for this scenario to occur during or after 2025.
It’s unknown if any comes or leads to full disclosure. But whether any of these three scenarios could dramatically alter our geopolitical or domestic situation is less debatable. It’s certain.
No old paradigm is worth it until we see or taste the next.
3.2 Your Power & the Stakes
The greater crisis itself doesn't have to be. The apocalypse doesn’t have to be your doomsday. Yes, you have little say in what starts on the world stage, but only with enough fear and recklessness do these things grow out of control. Don't do your part in that equation. Demand accountability and transparency before they tell you to jump off an edge.
What if full-disclosure (and fast) was the only way to prevent disaster? What if other nations are trying to get their evil out of the way before the new paradigm drops? Are you thinking of Russia and Ukraine? The MENA and Israel? And what about China and Taiwan?
Did you know INDOPACOM believes a major land war is on the horizon?
The way I see it, you folks might very well be the world’s most important peace lobbyists. As a socio-political process, peace is the best contribution you can make and it can be done through low-stakes environments, like social media. Do not give your power away and assume elected officials have all the authority. Rest assured, they don’t have as much as they claim. This is a double-edge sword.
You probably don’t need it, but here’s some insight into the opposing influence. The force that escalates.
I've met my fair share of war planners within two priority theatres, depending on the decade. They are all smart people, and they all worship 19th and 20th century military historians, Mediterranean wars from antiquity, and love spending their free time catastrophizing about what world changing conflict will develop during their career. It would be a shame if all that education went to waste.
Shortly after Trump took office, there was a "40% chance" of a conflict with the Kim regime. This was the official internal estimate of the administration. Pompeo leaked it to his pals in the Hudson Institute. Outside of Korean natsec, this scenario was not presented with the necessary magnitude it should've been to the South Korean people (or the American people). If the Busan port infrastructure was effectively slimed, approximately 150k+ elderly South Koreans with NCDs would've died over the next 3-6 weeks due to bottlenecks in medical logistics. It's unknown how this would've shaped the national conversation on post-war unification. No one thought too hard on the second and third order effects, precisely because the politically reckless are less liable to those "distantly" attributable consequences, so the usefully paranoid who would be concerned are not taken off the shelf.
Risk mitigation (from fallout) will simply be delegated to the Washington Posts of the world, where the issues are addressed, contained, and then left to die.
This is just a small example of how that next conflict would play out. A war of secrecy free from responsibility. For a bigger idea, consider this leaked document regarding a war over Taiwan in the 50s, and the ease with which the Chiefs consider nuclear weapons use (originally without presidential approval).
Now, nuclear weapons as we know them might be off the table today, but special projects, and their WMD-like consequences, will be on the table. And you might not even be allowed to know about the “radiation” this time.
Sorry, they just aren't at liberty to tell you why you're dying. After all, if the country didn't tell the truth about what happened to the children of their own diplomats, why would they tell someone holding a far more replaceable role? Did you know that some families of Vietnam war vets got calls confirming agent orange was responsible, while others did not?
With our wiretapped and legal-loophole-filled modern information infrastructure, you can bet that no family will be told next time.
Collectively, no one spent/spends much time thinking about how to enlighten the population on their share of the risks and the rewards. To be fair, no role in government properly does. Very few see themselves as responsible, that's the point I am trying to get at. They choose secrets over responsibility. They don't want innocents to die, sure, but if people could die, they don't want to be responsible for what comes next or the "hard work" of walking away from a major ego investment. So it's all very detached and game-like to them, compartmentalized away from the populations that will bear the weight of their intellectualizing. They don't telegraph their plans because the right to first strike is a privilege held in high value by the most paranoid, the most compartmentalized. The top .01% of the read-in hold on to that right. And that is always the right to play hawk, and only hawk.
They aren't in the cleanup business. But you are. The pollution, or the slime, from two paranoid agents in a conflict spiral becomes your mess. The collective PTSD is yours to solve. And if you don't solve it well, they identify you as the next problem if you complain too loudly. But it's also your nation, you get to decide what you want to keep, and therefore, what you want to protect. What memories do you want to keep or create? That time you went to war for reasons you still don't understand or that time you had fun at the beach with your family? Do we want a country with more of Y or with more of X? Who programmed you to think you had to have Y to get X? Again, what are you propagating into your social and political spaces? More fear? More escalation?
If we don't start collectively checking ourselves—IE, does this message send out "division vibes," or "unity vibes," then we unlock very dangerous scenarios.
One unacceptable nightmare scenario involves a wartime crisis where a major decision has to be made based on compartmentalized information, largely kept away from the national conversation. The .01% deciding for all of us. A decision that comes down to sacrificing the republic to save its people or sacrificing the people to save the republic. I think any of us who are free from fear would see no reason why that precipice should ever be reached. And, especially, that no real democratic republic would ever choose the later. But that is the place they make decisions from when overdosing on fear.
This is the nightmare that never has to come true. It is the Dark Skies potential future that consumes these people.
4.Hope Vectors
As mentioned earlier, suffering is on the table, but let's just assume that the fate of Earth is not. If we're dealing in delusions, let's flip the polarity. Let's see things from a hope scenario, an alternative to the heaviness in the natsec arena.
There's an optimistic belief in UFO lore that the planet is too big to fail, that guardians keep things steady, but it's not yet okay for you to know this. Of course, it isn't within the Space Force’s current power to serve as that kind of guardian or warden, even if they already called dibs on the title. But there certainly are many UAPish sightings around active volcanos and near life-intolerant nuclear material. If you're Tom Delonge, this is obviously because nukes and climate disasters are threats... to them, and thus they need to keep tabs on these vectors incase we try to use these weapons against the alien menace. Remember, we nuked the goalded annunaki in Stargate, and that was a box office hit. We even have enough nukes to destroy this planet over many times. Or other planets, if you think about it.
It sounds completely delusional, but lets consider the inverse. Just as delusional? If 3rd party advisors, who had seen this rodeo before, were involved? What if they did exist, had a big presence, were highly involved, and extremely competent?
Here's the other issue. The people who believe in angelic rescuers think we can wash our hands of any risk, any responsibility. That platinum pleiadean nordics will swoop in to beam people up to safety based on their Goodness of Heart credit scores. Of course, half of the country would call them racists and the other half would call them demons, so I don't know how useful any of it would be at scale. Everyone has the perfect bogeyman preprogrammed.
Or if your Huntsville Alabama, you might just think they're another potential variant of the space mosquito in disguise. So obviously, DIA frontman SAIC needs another tens years of coverup to reach the right confidence level before we can make a decision.
Or if you’re Bechtel, why not just build another 3 mile bunker? After all, the best thing you can sell the rich and powerful is more time, especially if "the crash" is any day now. Imagine the leverage it would give you over world leaders. Like gold retailers on a Glenn Beck show, fear sells pretty damn well, and every client of every station has a product fitting their price point, so let's not let the truth get in the way. That high confidence of nothing bad happening becomes a medium confidence with the right financial incentive.
Jokes aside, it might sound nice on paper to idealize rescuers from above but people don't handle nuance well during periods of shock. Even if the rescuer scenario was true, and God's fiery wheels fell from the heavens, you can be certain that the Mike Pence’s or Xi Jinping’s of the world would be shooting them out of the skies for "national security reasons," even if voices of reason at NORAD or SpOC advised otherwise.
Remember how many failures it took for Kirk to start listening to Spock?
4.1 Contested Truth
Outside oversight does not guarantee that you don't need to involve yourself in the story of shaping national security. Especially if your current solution is just sheltering in a homestead with a pint until it all blows over, or waiting for bureaucrats to do the right thing. It's still a responsibility issue. And then the other risk comes from equating the real or hallucinated space mosquito with everything from outer or inner space, because the story could incorrectly take us there. If all truth comes from narratives of fear, you'll struggle to accept healthy partnerships, even if its a partnership you really need. Who do you want handling that nuance? John Bolton and the aptly titled George Bush Center for Intelligence?
You shouldn't have to think hard about that.
For strategists from the west coast to west Huntsville, the war for truth has been synonymous with a war on truth. For every grassroots UFO group there is a JASON group. Even Grusch, the lead whistleblower in Washington last summer, has to make his case from a natsec, fear-based angle to get any traction in a bureaucratic disclosure. The national conversation you get is not the one you deserve. How convenient that has been.
But nothing lasts forever.
Disclosure could mean a lot of things, It could go well beyond access to life changing technology or free energy. As whistleblowing begins to go international, the nature of the discussion and expectation might change dramatically. The discoveries on Earth could be just as amazing as the discoveries from space. I think the final result will be highly accurate. But the transition to that endstate could be filled with malinformation engineered by bad actors, particularly those on the losing side of things, much of whom might come from within the legacy umbrella in this country and abroad. So be very careful how you react to all things legacy. The word itself implies a cutoff for a reason.
Consider this disclosure scenario: what if there was a second legacy group in the 50s that chose dove? A good faction and a bad faction within the MIC? You might literally be faced with a scenario where you have to choose between a hopeful assessment or a fearful assessment, each with equal parts supporting evidence.
Or the engineered impression that both sides have equal evidence.
A free and fair society requires a collective connection to the truth, anything less is unsustainable. Anything less isn't true disclosure. Contrary to the sentiment of this article, I'm certain the truth will result in the best possible outcome for the 99%, and that only the excessively dogmatic, schizophrenic, and egotistical will think overwise.
Unfortunately, those three held the reigns. So if they tell you that you need THEM... because of lizard city x, or astral prison planet y, or solar radiation event z; remember, they aren't worried about a "prison planet," they're worried about a real prison in Leavenworth.
Contrary to popular opinion, most of those involved will not receive amnesty. Respecting the trial process and the victims will be paramount to truth seeking.
Expect a Nuremberg trial.
5.Net Assessment
Many years ago I met a veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Even then there were few left, and even fewer that were lucid. We had a good conversation. He had some ancient jokes involving the war department and such and he wrote me a nice letter weeks later. People like this didn't fight because they were afraid of the enemy, but because they believed in protecting a better way of life. There is a big distinction here.
This ocean of difference is an integral part of the revolutionary American spirit that has been almost completely lost in the contemporary military & intelligence paradigm. Are we afraid of the British Crown or do we desire a life with self determination?
National security has to be about better tomorrows, not just the bare minimum survival motive. The Constitution wasn't written to be worshiped, it was written for people like you. To be seen, and experienced, and understood by the people that allow it to exist. Would our founders ever consider a classified law enforceable at a federal level? Against all citizens?
It’s not a Republic when it’s own laws are hidden like nuclear bunkers. This will make more sense when we get whistleblowers from the DHS.
Secrecy is killing what’s left of the democratic Republic.
That's why it's so important to move past the primacy of secrecy and return to responsibility to future generations as the guiding value.
I'm not gonna provide a confidence level on the truth. Instead, I think an argument that helps you see possibility as wonder, instead of as fear, is the path to better tomorrows.
Maybe there is no space mosquito to infiltrate us or federated fleet to save us. Maybe there's both. Maybe its one or the other. Maybe there's Nazi lizards in giant caves. Maybe beautiful purple haired elves are out there, waiting for single redditors to become spacefaring. Maybe there’s no NHI at all and it's one big grift. Maybe there's too many to ever hope to categorize.
There are so many maybes.
You get a big deck of cards, filled with possibilities, possibly infinite possibilities. So don't dwell on the Delonge doom vector. That vector does nothing but focus your awareness on the two jokers in a big deck. There's no perspective of your odds on the draw. Or how you can play a game of cards without the jokers all together. If there's a 1000 alien civilizations, and 2 are awful. That's 998 experiences of wonder.
Imagine there were tens of millions of intelligent species out there. So many you could never meet them all. Then there would always be something to be worried about, or to be excited about.
I'm certain the coverup happened because people were enslaved by fear, programmed to escalate it. People with power that lived that vector, where every card yet to be drawn was the joker. It wont end until enough learn to free themselves from fear. There really doesn’t need to be any more word salad than that, sorry for the wall of text. Either you choose to be brave or you choose to be afraid. Everything else is just the conversation that gets you there. And during the interim conversational period, before full disclosure is out, they will try to make you afraid, to make you like them.
Please keep that in mind. They chose hawk in the face of uncertainty. They chose from a place of fear. It was the wrong choice, and I believe the world has paid a high price trying to correct it. It would be well worth all the Chatham house cringe if at least one of you didn’t follow in their footsteps.
The people that you trust to protect you should be the bravest you can find, not the most fearful. If those leaders don't exist, you have to be that leader for others. Even if its only for your family.
There's a quote from a Hopi medicine man, responding to a minister's question about the alleged fifth world prophecies and how to survive that so-called transition. The elder said that the best shelter will always be the peace you make in yourself. It sounds silly, but its no where near as silly as what everyone else tried.
Thank you for reading.