• Home
  • UFO disclosure

Tag: UFO disclosure

When Secrecy is Better than Official Disclosure of Extraterrestrial Life

Dr. Steven Greer, a leading figure in the UFO disclosure movement, has just proposed an audacious idea concerning official disclosure of extraterrestrial life. In his expert opinion, acquired over more than 25 years of disclosure advocacy, continued secrecy is better than disclosing the truth about visiting aliens if they are depicted in any other way than peaceful nonviolent beings attempting to advance the evolution of human life on Earth.

In the February 5 installment of Gaia TV’s Disclosure series, Greer was interviewed on the topic of the “Architecture of Secrecy” and explained his view about how official disclosure should be handled. He asserted his controversial idea that continued secrecy is better than any disclosure scenario that depicts extraterrestrials as in any way constituting a threat:

My biggest concern is that there’s a hijacking of disclosure around a narrative of a threat, of an us versus them scenario. That is the sort of thing that can lead to the worst possible outcome.  I wrote a paper called “When Disclosure Serves Secrecy”. Disclosure that would serve the secret agenda is not something that we need. I’d rather have the secrecy continue, frankly. But a disclosure that would be truthful and would be forward looking, and that would have an interplanetary peace initiative, and communication and contact initiative, and that would have the release of these technologies for peaceful energy generation, transportation and what have you, that would transform the planet very quickly  (Video: 9:45)

Greer explicitly referred to Luiz Elizondo and Dr. Hal Puthoff, who are senior figures in Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars Academy, as a major part of the threat scenario that is being currently put out into the public arena through the major news media. On that score, I would agree with Greer that the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP) which was created within the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2007, and headed by Elizondo up to 2017, was unnecessarily framing the UFO issue in terms of it being a threat to national security.

If Greer only limited himself to critiquing depictions of UFOs and all extraterrestrial visitors as a threat, which AATIP appeared to be doing, he would be on solid ground. However, Greer in the Disclosure interview, as well as in past public statements, made it clear that he is against researcher that depict any extraterrestrials, even if only a small percentage, as a threat in any way.

On May 2, 2006, Greer launched an extraordinary public attack on my exopolitics research for having committed the egregious sin of proposing that extraterrestrials could in any way behave similarly to humans in terms of a wide range of motivations. My research dividing extraterrestrials into different motivational categories, e.g., the good, the bad and the indifferent, was lambasted by Greer as fueled by disinformation.

Greer is no doubt correct that elements of the Military Industrial Complex are exaggerating the threat narrative when it comes to UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation, which AATIP appeared to be currently doing and which I acknowledged back in my 2006 response to Greer. In it, however, I also pointed out that Greer’s bold assertion that there is no evidence of hostile extraterrestrial behavior, can be easily shown to be wrong by examining multiple sources revealing the egregious behavior of some extraterrestrial visitors.

On July 26, 2010, Greer was confronted by Project Camelot founders, Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan, over the same issue, and they presented their own evidentiary sources that some extraterrestrial visitors were behaving unethically and maliciously.

In 2018, Greer attacked two of the insider sources I have cited extensively in my secret space program book series, Corey Goode and William Tompkins, as putting out disinformation about aggressive extraterrestrials, Draconian Reptilians, who are described as a prominent part of the planetary control system. In this case, he speculated that both Goode and Tompkins were implanted with false memories and were unwittingly spreading disinformation.

Again, I responded to Greer by pointing out the abundant evidence refuting his audacious assertion that no extraterrestrials behave in ways that are unethical or malicious. Indeed, I showed how his dismissal of Tompkins claims, in particular, ignored the impressive documentation substantiating his information.

With that brief background on Greer’s past public statements on the issue of some, not all, extraterrestrials being unethical and malicious, the context has been set for better understanding the implications of what Greer had to say next in the February 5 interview.

Greer repeated his assertion that continued secrecy is preferable to any official disclosure announcement describing aliens as a threat, even if only partially or a subset of the entire alien visitation scenario:

The disclosure of this subject is the most important announcement in the history of the human race. How it’s handled, it has to be handled with great wisdom and great care. If it is handled with the kind of buffoonery and clumsiness that is evolving, or with partial truths, mixed in with disinformation, with frightening scenarios that scare the hell out of the public, I actually prefer the secrecy. (17:34)

What makes Greer’s views significant is that he claims to be in touch with members of the oversight group of up to 200 members commonly referred to as the MAJIC committee. Greer asserts that he is providing them with an expert civilian perspective on disclosure, where, incredibly, he appears to be advocating continued secrecy if an official disclosure statement is not framed in the way he prescribes.

In short, what is widely regarded as “full disclosure”, where all the facts and evidence of visiting extraterrestrials – good and bad – along with the truth about secret space programs is publicly revealed in an official announcement, is not supported by Greer. On the contrary, he only supports a “limited disclosure” statement where all references to unethical or malicious aliens is sanitized.

It’s hard to envisage that a leading figure in the disclosure advocacy movement could support continued secrecy on any grounds, let alone the dubious grounds Greer asserts, which I and others have shown ignores a large body of evidence. As to why Greer is taking such an extreme position, there are a number of explanations that come to mind. One is that he is personally invested in a secret Vatican initiative to establish a “New Cosmic Esoteric World Religion” through a “false flag alien savior event” as described elsewhere. Another is that Greer has been co-opted or compromised by the MAJIC Committee in charge of extraterrestrial related projects and is sabotaging the disclosure movement by imposing unreasonable demands for a future official disclosure announcement.

Greer’s position that continued secrecy is better than an official disclosure announcement which contains reference to any extraterrestrial visitors as a threat, is a position that he will find increasingly difficult to defend given the public’s growing awareness of all the available evidence of visiting aliens, and the diverse motivations behind their activities. Full disclosure is already well underway through multiple public initiatives  disclosing all aspects of visiting extraterrestrial life and secret space programs, and any effort to filter or curtail such information in ways favored by Greer, are certain to fail.

© Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Notice

Further Reading

Human Nature-Based Disclosure

 Unique aerospace vehicles coming out of the ocean in Puerto Rico. Photo by José Fernandez.

How can we as “disclosure activists” and as practitioners of “exopolitics” (and, in many cases, as contact experiencers) really assist society to accept and to adapt to the disclosure of an extraterrestrial, multi-dimensional presence? Should we simply allow a more classic, militaristic interpretive tendency (as within the effort of To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences) convince politicians and citizens worldwide and let that extension of our political biases take its course or should we try to find another way of doing things?

I think that we (in fact, eventually, ALL of us and not just ‘experiencers’ who have been awakened to a vaster reality) must try to understand why we are as we are in terms of maintaining our personal identities, sense of meaning and moral politics. I think that our ability to see and our blindness impeding seeing how to “connect the dots” (in a healthy, healing, constructive way) is related to how consciousness itself is capable or not of embracing more aspects of reality in a coherent way. And some of the people speaking about this (although in less spiritual terms) are moral and developmental psychologists.  As boring as these studies might be (in contrast to cover-up revelations, for instance) they can serve as foundations based on empirical research to learn why we create dominance hierarchies and why we fight so much with each other, whether we are in the 0.1% elite group or in any other social strata.

In order to establish contact with healthy, benevolent interstellar beings on a par with their alleged lofty ideals and in a mutually beneficial fashion, with sovereignty as a species that can be sustained, we probably first need to be able to leave our”self-perpetuating wheel of unending conflict.”

What makes ‘sense’ to us is generally related to our intuitions of what is and is not. And this is an expression of the Principle of Identity. And the Principle of Identity (related to how we cognitively intuit what is and is not in our mental schemas and in relation to perception) is probably rooted in the equivalence of consciousness with being itself. It is rooted in the fact that we are (being) because we experience (cogito ergo sum). Thereafter, our interpretive experience is rooted in the self-evident fact that we first know that we are because we experience. It is an automatic part of our conscious awareness and even of our personal identity-based political operations in any “real world” we may be participating.

By extension, constructive “common cause” identity politics, and destructive, “common enemy” identity politics is based on that capacity of recognizing expressions of what is or of existence and being. We could summarize (according to some developmental psychologists like Kegan, Kohlberg, Peck, Cheryl, Gilligan, Fowler, Cook-Greuter, Baldwin, et al) our capacity to embrace and understand varies from person to person.

Levels of Ego Development according to one of the developmental psychologists, Suzanne Cook-Greuter. To face the challenge of DISCLOSURE we probably need a large percentage of the population and/or its cultural-political leaders in a Green (Pluralist), Teal or Turquoise stage of development. How could someone in a predominant “Amber” stage of ego development (the Diplomat- Conformist) act in the name of pluralist, world-centric values for the good of all humankind while willing to admit into his or her circle of care and concern non-human, extraterrestrial (or even intraterrestrial) beings?

It can be summarized as if the personal room for our consciousness and its degrees of possible embrace or identification with reality and interpretations were larger or smaller. It might also operate under a greater or lesser intensity of subjective walls or subdivisions in that inner conscious “space” or “room” and we would have biases possessing our conscious experience without us being aware of it, limiting how much and how we embrace what we disclose to ourselves in our experience.

The more we expand our consciousness as a permanent average trait the more we can embrace a “common emphasis” identity politics versus a “common enemy” identity politics. This issue related to how our CONSCIOUSNESS is freer and more inclusive or instead possessed by inner walls and biases that affect our interpersonal relationships, politics, ufology, disclosure. If we do not nourish a trusting environment we may not be ready for healthy social coordination after major UFO, experiencer revelations.

According to Ken Wilber (working with the information provided by some of those developmental psychologists) a large percentage of the population primarily functions in a premodern, mythic, authority-based level of development coloring their self-identities in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to feel, think, value and include multiple truths multilaterally, fact-based and pluralistically, or in a true modern democratic way, not to speak of the capacity to find a way to harmonize ideological differences via an integrative approach.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt emphasizes (conservative and liberal) moral TENDENCIES (rather than developmental levels) affecting self-identity and identity politics but his work is seriously related to this discourse and to how disclosure activists may effectively work in society beyond participating (even if based on reason) in the blame game.

In a world that needs to come together to process shared human problems: degradation of the oceans, climate change, nuclear warheads, terrorism across borders, artificial intelligence and job loss, information glut, and a long etc, the popularity of ethnic nationalism (now achieving power through democratic elections) is dismantling the international order that (at least in principle) promoted larger swaths of humanity to come together in cooperation with healthy democracies around a world of shared human rights using reason and facts to agree in applications.

How can a “post-truth” world order or a more disunited world made up of more dominating but competing for populist, nationalist polities welcome “the others”? (ETs). How can societies learn to deal in a constructive way and as part of a more unified global humanity if an “us vs them” mentality prevails?

If the classical liberal institutions and classical liberal people’s values in the world are in disarray as we tend to hold on to limited answers, how are we going to add the cultural challenge of verifying an extraterrestrial presence? The “rooms” or “spaces” in our consciousnesses need to expand.

I propose that as “disclosure activists” we also need to understand our own human psychology and what motivates us in order to engage in a more intelligent disclosure discourse and activism. Are most of us liberals (in the liberals vs conservative sense)? How can we value and speak with conservatives (both recognized by Wilber and Haidt as necessary)?

I definitely think that we need to study the work of moral psychologists like Johnathan Haidt and also the works of integrative philosopher Ken Wilber (who emphasizes developmental psychology). One emphasizes tendencies and, the other, capacities. And we need to understand both if we are to become aware of why we are how we are and why we become so invested in our beliefs.

If we are to overcome what may be the greatest challenge of all (probably challenging human nature as we normally experience it) we need to rise beyond opinions about each other. It must even go beyond the genuine and fantastic critiques of what an elite may be doing to us to retain control of us.

In order to be politically and exopolitically responsible we must really focus on understanding our tendencies and that of others (in regular citizens as well as elites and, simply, those in positions of leadership), tendencies naturally bearing on the degree of openness, personal biases and/or various specific interests toward the complex issue of disclosure. Simultaneously, we also need to understand why (sometimes, due to developmental level incapacity) many cannot rise to the challenge of disclosure because they – quite simply – they cannot rise above standard belief systems and cohere explanations discovering what they have in common and – from this platform – inform, share, educate.

The greatest transformative challenge humanity faces would be so deeply transformative that it cannot simply be based on simplistic belief system solutions. Revealing the degree of mischievousness with which an elite controls the cover-up or if a handful of contactees communicating with “space brothers” were – after all – correct in what, otherwise, looked like airy-fairy recommendations and narratives would be probably remain superficial, cosmetic solutions prone to produce more interpersonal conflict unless ‘we’ who care about truth, evolution and disclosure (at least as many of us as possible) come to value understanding why we are as we are, what can we really become and how to go about educating and transforming our current manifestations of “human nature.” This is why we need to expand our sphere of interest into Social Psychology, Behavioral Genetics, Biosociology, and other sources of information that shed light upon our “human nature.”

Thus far, the “UFO community” has made some contributions to society at large (albeit mostly preaching to the choir) but has not been able to provide a basis to come to basic agreements or to integrate the best information. We are also divided by our tendencies, often to the point of not recognizing each others’ contributions. So, we have also shown to the world how we subdivide ourselves as any other social group with a political message.

Do we simply need to become more conscious through more validated or grounded revelations, information, and through spiritual practices or do we need to re-engineer our tendencies and our developmental capacities by re-engineering our genes or simply becoming aware of why we are as we are (and to change our behavior and attitudes accordingly) is the key to become politically and exopolitically successful “citizens” in a complex, multi-dimensional cosmos?

A person to keep in mind to deepen this necessary conversation is Dr. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens who (probably in 2019) will be exploring (from an Integral Meta-Theory perspective) the issue of extraterrestrial contacts, Ufology, society, exopolitics.

 

 

 

 

Sources

Wilber, K. (2007). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Transparency Not An Alien Concept

by Alan Chartock          January 4, 2018            (troyrecord.com)

• In this short commentary, Alan Chartock, a professor at the State University of New York writes: “Of course there are other forms of life out there besides us. Are you kidding? “And if they are out there, why don’t they show themselves? “If other civilizations are so much greater than we are, why haven’t they conquered us? “What would we do if we found other civilizations?”

• Since our governmental approach has been to conduct ET/UFO studies and programs in secret, we have no real idea what research has been done and what data has been collected. So we enter into a formulaic denial that there is nothing else out there. Does the government fear that the sharing of information will cause panic and that the people can’t be trusted?

• There has to be transparency. Without that there can be no democracy. Of course, we are not alone and once we figure that out, we had better have a plan.

 

Of course there are other forms of life out there besides us. Are you kidding? Just how egotistical must we be to think that we are all alone in the cosmos? Take a look out at the night sky and read the literature as we discover constellation upon constellation, universe upon universe. You’d think we could admit to ourselves that we have no idea where it all begins and where it stops? And yet there are those who have the egotistical impudence to suggest that it’s just us. Oh, come on.

Back in 2004, a couple of American fighter pilots saw something unusual and a record was made but kept secret. It was, one said, “not from the Earth.” The video was recently made public and we now discover that the Pentagon had been studying extraterrestrial phenomena through a now discontinued program that ex-majority leader Harry Reid had insisted upon. Of course, since our governmental approach has been to conduct these kinds of studies and programs in secret, we have no real idea what research has been done and what data has been collected. So we enter into a formulaic denial that there is nothing else out there. Very specific evidence is ignored and it is tough to understand why that is.

Does the government fear that the sharing of information will cause panic and that the body politic really can’t be trusted with whatever information we have gathered? No one wants to be thought of as a conspiracy kook. It’s much easier to suggest that the people who report sightings are nothing more than publicity seeking lunatics. In fact, that may be true, but then again, maybe not.

All of this has been explored in one film after another and people are excited by the idea that there are civilizations out there that are far more advanced than ours. Many of us love the idea that films like “The Day That Earth Stood Still” are quite real — that other beings have the capability of studying our plant and, unlike us, recognize that the way we are doing things could result in the mutual destruction of our world. Recently there were printed reports that the North Korean maniacal dictator Kim Jung Un stated that he had the nuclear button on his desk and the President of the United States countered, boasting that his nuclear button was bigger. What could possibly go wrong?

So why have there been so many sightings over the years? Could they really have been extraterrestrial fly-by’s? And if they are out there, why don’t they show themselves? We are sending our own probes through space to see what’s out there. What would we do if we found other civilizations? Would we do to them what we did to the Native American populations? Would we rape and pillage? If other civilizations are so much greater than we are, why haven’t they conquered us? Maybe they are aware of the dangers of such actions.

I often think of the way cancer cells can metastasize through the body, wreaking havoc as they destroy one organ after another. There is always the possibility that extraterrestrial civilizations or even we ourselves are just like that. We hop to the moon and soon to Mars and then to goodness knows where.
It may well turn out that our insistence on spending the money on these secret programs that could go to health care and education may lead to the eradication of all that has happened up to now on earth. We really do have to think this through. If we are spending the money why are we doing it? There has to be transparency. Without that there can be no democracy. Of course, we are not alone and once we figure that out, we had better have a plan.

Alan Chartock is professor emeritus at the State University of New York, publisher of the Legislative Gazette and president and CEO of the WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network. Readers can email him at alan@wamc.org.

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.

Copyright © 2018 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.