UAPs and National Insecurity

“It’s an issue of national security.” That was the refrain that many of the whistle-blowers and experts sounded on the matter of UAPs in the recent film, The Age of Disclosure, as they incessantly invoked “threats” and “adversaries.”

As I’m sure you all know, “UAP” (unidentified anomalous phenomenon) is the scientific-sounding way to refer to a UFO, which was the scientific-sounding way to refer to a flying saucer. You see, if I use fancy words like anomalous and phenomenon, that shows that I’m not some credulous new age yahoo who uses words like “weird” or “object.” Nope. By using the military term UAP, I demonstrate that I am a hard-headed rationalist with military-grade standards of evidence.

Anyway, why this emphasis on national security? Some commentators think the public is being primed for the next psy-op, a staged alien invasion, to justify new programs of social control. A war is always useful for that. Now, I’m not one to dismiss a good conspiracy theory out of hand, and will say more on this topic later, but I think there is something going on here much more serious, much more disturbing, yet on a deeper level much more hopeful, than yet another chapter of The Illuminati Versus the People.

Most of the experts in the film are former members of the armed services and intelligence agencies. Having been immersed in the mentality of national security for their whole careers, naturally they speak its language. They have been conditioned to think in terms of enemies and threats.

Secondly, they are risking their careers, reputations, and maybe more to speak out. In order to be taken seriously, they may feel compelled to speak in terms of national security rather than in terms of the transforming potential of contact with extraterrestrial conscious beings, or of the implications of the collapse of foundational scientific paradigms. But this doesn’t even come close to explaining the national security orientation of the film and its experts.

Here we are, on the brink of epochal revelations, and we are still worrying about national security? Come on guys! Retrieved alien craft? Recovered “biologics” (extraterrestrial humanoids)? They saw it with their own eyes. They have no incentive to lie (and a lot of disincentive). Why aren’t people pouring out into the streets with shouts of wonder? Why do we continue with business as usual—in particular, the business of war, the business of hate, the business of struggle.

The reason is that something is in the way. We are not able to let in the truth. Government suppression of information is not the only reason why UFOs have been relegated to unreality, nor is media-CIA narrative management. We have been willing accomplices in our own deception; otherwise, we would not be reacting with such indifference today. There is no shame in this. It is not easy to accommodate information that dissolves our story of who we are and what is real. It is a threat to our… security.

Ironically, the mindset of security is the very reason why “disclosure” is happening in the first place. If we weren’t obsessed with secrecy, with control, with enemies and threats, then everything would be out in the open and there would be nothing to disclose. When they invoke national security, these whistle-blowers, brave as they are, are unconsciously feeding the psychic substructure of the very secrecy regime they are trying to overthrow.

I can say the same about the narrative of an evil cabal of Illuminati bent on enslaving humanity. Whether it is objectively true or not, that myth produces the ground of us-versus-them fear that the cabal exploits to wield power. Whether it is an occult cabal, or a mundane power elite, a despotic ruling class depends on public willingness to direct its anger at some other enemy (usually each other). That willingness comes easily when we are conditioned to us-them thinking.

The emergence of UAPs into consensus reality invites us to question who we are, as a people, as a nation, as a civilization, as a species. It asks, “Who do we want to be? What do we want to become?” We answer those questions not with words, but with choices. These choices go beyond how we relate to ET visitors, to include how we relate to each other.

The spectacle of China, Russia, and the United States scrambling to weaponize recovered UAP technology, as if the existence of UAPs and their technology doesn’t invalidate the entire basis of nation-state competition, would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

A further irony is that the mindset from which we are approaching UAP technology makes it impenetrable to our understanding. The blatant violation of Newtonian kinetics that UAPs display, their apparent lack of any kind of propulsive thrust, their seamless transition from air to water, and many other observed characteristics of their craft challenge our assumptions about objective observer-independent reality. In a sense, the craft are not in our reality when they execute abrupt right-angle turns that would normally generate infinite g-forces. (That doesn’t mean that they are in another reality with different laws of physics. It is more like they are operating outside our inertial frame of reference.)

To even begin to understand this requires a breakdown in the self-other, observer-observed dichotomies we take for granted. These are the foundation of modern consciousness, the modern sense-of-self. They form the basis of what we call “rational” or “evidence-based” thinking – the hard-headed rationalism encoded in the term “UAP,” and the default frame of national security.

Security is the obsession of the separate self. In a world of self and other, not-self is at best indifferent and often hostile to self, since your well-being may very well come at the expense of mine. The strong take from the weak. Human progress, in the Story of Separation, is a matter of harnessing the indifferent forces of nature, outcompeting the rest of life, and domesticating the wild. But no matter how advanced the program of control, the separate self is always insecure. Always there is some new, looming threat, some unanticipated risk. Never does it feel truly at home in the world.

Herein lies the deeper significance of the “national security” motif of The Age of Disclosure. If the film is any indication of our collective state of consciousness, then we still have a long way to go before the technologies of UAPs become real to us. They will remain on the outskirts of reality, sequestered in their black op silos, their skunkworks, and the paradigmatic ghettos of heterodoxy. Scientists won’t dare take them seriously, especially when their colleagues are watching, so as to avoid the taint of disrepute. The necessary scientific ideas will seem counter-intuitive to those whose intuitions spring from the story of separation. They will be foreign to the language and culture of science. Stigma and secrecy will conspire to prevent scientific collaboration. We won’t be able to realize these technologies until we relax our boundaries.

In a sense we are being protected, not deprived. If we were, in our current state of collective consciousness, to access UAP technologies such as apparently limitless energy, to what use would we put them? Stuck in the mentality of security, enemies, and threats, domination and control, we would apply them according to that mentality. It would be like giving a machine gun to an angry 4-year-old.

Fortunately, though, we are protected—not so much by an outside force, but by (1) our own inability to comprehend the technology from our current state of consciousness, and (2) our inability to develop it from our current state of organizational intelligence. Many of the whistle-blowers explain that the biggest obstacle to disclosure is people’s fear of ridicule and ostracism. An unwritten code governs what one can and cannot say. To maintain your acceptability in educated society, you’d better mention UAP’s only in tones of skepticism or mockery. Otherwise, everyone will avoid associating with you—even if they secretly agree with you.

The appearance of consensus, not actual consensus, rules society. To engineer consent for a war or a genocide, it is not necessary for a majority to believe its rationale. It is enough to engineer the appearance of a majority.

The social dynamic of inclusion and exclusion, in-group and out-group, self-people and other-people, is one of the expressions of separation that keep UAPs on the margins of reality, no matter how much “disclosure” happens.

Us-versus-them thinking is ascendant right now in US politics and elsewhere around the world. The current administration’s fixation on “winning,” its callous disregard for its losers, its contempt for migrants and other marginalized people, and its policies of maximizing extraction from the environment (to name a few) exemplify the mindset of separation. Yet the Trump administration is no anomaly. Both political parties are fully aligned with the war machine, and American political discourse abounds with othering and the dehumanizing of opponents, with ridicule, mockery, and contempt, and with the ethos of cancellation that casts heretics and deviants into the ranks of the untouchable. War mentality is raging around and within my country.

Or so it would seem. Is anyone actually riled up over “Venezuelan narco-terrorists”? Outside the political cage fight, people are growing in compassion and tolerance and goodwill. If these values were brought into our governance, our economics, our social systems; if we saw them enacted every day, maybe we would not be so vulnerable to fear narratives about extraterrestrial invaders. Such a society would prime us for different intuitions about the outsider, the alien, the other.

As with narco-terrorists, I don’t think very many people are actually scared of extraterrestrial invaders. Logic says that if they were going to destroy us, they already would have, but this is not mainly a matter of logic. We are drawing towards a story in which we no longer assume enmity, but goodwill. Shall we believe that ETs are here to subjugate us, to enslave us, to exploit us? Why would we think that? Well, one reason is that is what human has done to human from time immemorial. But that is not all that humans have been, and that is not all humans can be. We can learn from the bitter lessons of separation. Even if we have reiterated the same patterns a thousand times, still we can choose another way. The transition of humanity to a different kind of civilization, the great instauration, is not an inevitability though; it is a choice, a choice presented to us time and again, a choice presented to us now.

As we heal our inner and outer divisions, the psychic climate becomes more hospitable to benign ETs, to the dissolving of secrets, and to the flourishing of technologies of abundance. The false flag operation to stage a fake alien invasion won’t work. For it to work, the public must be susceptible to fear narratives.

We are no longer susceptible. That statement is not a description. It is a declaration that becomes true as we make it true. It is a choice.

Earlier, I raised the idea that UAPs generate a separate inertial frame of reference in order to execute maneuvers that violate physical conservation laws (e.g. of momentum). We can take the mind-bending notion of distinct, co-existing realities further. (I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether I am speaking literally or metaphorically in what follows—a distinction that is itself an obstacle to understanding.) It isn’t just that a public moving away from the Story of Separation is less susceptible to fear narratives, war rhetoric, and false flags. It is that malicious ETs and Illuminati Controllers are ontologically excluded from the reality field that humanity generates as it heals, forgives, shares, and cooperates. They have increasing difficulty becoming real. Earlier I mentioned the paradox that the idea of an evil world-controlling Cabal feeds the us-them fear mindset that allows the cabal to wield power. But here is a deeper paradox. The myth of the Cabal feeds the reality in which the Cabal even exists.

Can you get a sense of what is at stake here, in the Disclosure Wars? We are in a struggle over reality itself. What shall be real? What shall exist? The relation between myth and reality is not what the story (myth) of Separation holds. Narratives aren’t just descriptions or interpretations of an external observer-independent reality. They are co-generators of reality. Nor are they constructed merely of concepts; they are organic parts of an embodied state of being, of consciousness, and of relationship. Therefore, the war over what is real is also a struggle for who we are.

War, even struggle, is much too small a concept to encompass the magnitude of the drama we have entered. Indeed, that narration loops back into the same old story of separation.

I am sorry, it is hard to avoid new-agey or pseudo-scientific wording here while maintaining brevity. So let me appeal to another source of knowledge. It is the conviction that we are not at the mercy of what “they” will do. We are not at the mercy of what “they” are. We are in a moment of choice.

Fear-based calls for disclosure invoking extraterrestrial or foreign “threats” will not open the door we want to walk through. For that we must inhabit a new story, that no longer names us as discrete, separate units in a world of other, ever insecure, ever at war. When that shifts, amazing technologies of abundance will become available. In a sense they already are available. Scarcity in this world is usually the result of maldistribution, not objective lack. It is the result of how we see and relate to each other. It is the result of who we suppose ourselves to be. So in fact, the purpose of new paradigm technologies is NOT to bring about abundance. Quite the reverse: they will become available once we accept abundance, which comes from understanding our interbeingness. Then they become available for their true purpose, which is to vastly expand our creative powers.

We will accede to those powers when we are ready for them.