So this will probably be difficult reading for most of you reading this who have been in the field of UFOs for a long time, and I understand. But regardless, it’s a conversation which needs to be addressed rationally and with high skepticism. Recently, I’ve had some discussions with mainstream ufology folk about that old classic concept, which is that of the threat narrative. The ‘threat narrative’ is a massive hang-up for mainstream UFO people, if you speak to most mainstream people in ‘Ufology’, they will very strongly tell you ‘it’s not a threat,’ and recite the usual mantra about how we would have been destroyed by now or that they want to save humanity from nuclear annihilation. All of which is unverifiable projection of ones own belief system.
This heavily stigmatized narrative has been deeply imbedded within Ufology going back to Dr. Steven Greer (who should be commended for his earlier work in 2000s). However, the issue comes when you cannot have the conversation about UFOs (UAP) being a threat, nor can you use the threat narrative to engage the public within activism. It is forbidden under the house rules of old guard Ufology, which is good for soothing belief systems but terrible when getting politicians to actually do something.
Greer is arguably the main proponent of the ‘Alien False Flag’ conspiracy that involves a Nazi rocket scientist who passed over to Carol Rosin that the government was to hoax an alien invasion. Others have apparently come forward to him to say that ‘Alien Reproduction Vehicles’ are going to be used to stage such an event. Again, we see issues with verified sources and direct evidence of such nefarious plans.
Despite problems with logistics, patriotism and people in government generally not being genocidal murdering psychopaths of their own people, we have an issue of potentially imbedded disinformation when considering the alien false flag conspiracy.
Let’s look at activism of the UAP issue with regards to political engagement as an example and how it may have been considered an issue to congressional exposure (given that there were actual black UAP programs and such individuals took steps to keep the issue controlled).
Such hypothetical people in government (working deep programs with regard to UAP) are not hypothetically stupid. Consider you have a UAP program you want to keep quiet, you therefore have an issue of UAP exposure and therefore need congress to not be engaged, you need to work the problem. You need to ensure barriers and boundaries.
Firstly, the problem comes through being able to contain enthusiasm for activism. Consider that there are a few hundred thousand people around the world who do know that ‘UFOs are real’ and that possibly the government had materials belonging to UAP on a secret defense contractor program. How would you eliminate that threat?
Well, you might somehow create stigma around the topic, lots and lots of stigma around the very notion of UFOs and extraterrestrials, so much so, that you stop the conversation happening in the mainstream and therefore congress.
No pressure is allowed to build, no UFO activism and certainly no political engagement via mainstream media and the congress. There is no motivation for congress to look at UAP seriously, to establish a UAPTF or eventually to look closely at your program (possibly an illegal SAP).
Secondly, you need to ensure that methods by which the UAP issue can be translated into political motivation are eliminated.
Here we find ourselves at the threat narrative.
To successfully remove the modus operandi for engagement of the congress via credible UAPinfo, you must remove the main motivating factor, and that is that UFOs present as a very serious threat.
Put it this way, you simply can’t have activists running around spreading the idea that an unknown intelligence is operating with impunity and tampering with nuclear weapons. For if this information were to reach the mainstream and congress, it would be acted upon under the guise of being a very significant threat by which they MUST act upon immediately (which is exactly what’s happening via the House Armed Service Committee and the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence). The result is engagement on a serious level that elevates the issue past the ‘space-brothers-are-here-to-save-us’ narrative, which kills progression dead.
Not to speculate wildly, but…
You might argue, some steps were taken to manipulate and control the narrative ahead of time. You might argue that controls over Ufology were out in place to ensure its containment, to maintain its continued BS conspiracy status, the stories about portals and evil extraterrestrials on Mars, etc, spread throughout tabloids to distract from the signal. (But as far as I’m aware, operations are forbidden against the American people by their own government. Private interests and foreign intelligence interference on the other hand, who knows).
Most of Ufology are not strategists. They fail to realise that the threat narrative is the biggest motivator to congressional and civilian disclosure, in the same way the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the biggest distraction from progression. Additionally, as much as people may not like this, the threat narrative is the biggest attraction to UAP activist work when engaging the mainstream.
Imagine climate change activists trying to get governments to act without informing about the threat of the world heating up, or people trying to inform governments about domestic terrorism without stating there is any actual threat of violence?
The government works by funding what they perceive to be a potential threat. We need the government to take UAP seriously. We need to force the government to treat this issue seriously (if it turns out not to be a threat then great!).
Potential and unintentional threat
And then what about the aspect of something ‘potentially’ being a threat?
In order to act, one doesn’t have to have a concrete validation that something is a threat, only the ‘potential’ for it to be a threat. Sorry to get political, but consider the recent ‘domestic terrorism’ in DC, if a person has been radicalized it doesn’t mean they will storm the capital building to overturn an election, but certainly there is a potential for them to do so because you don’t fully know their mindset or their actual intentions (maybe they are peaceful protesters and had no intentions of storming the Capitol). However, you must consider the actual possibility of a threat and act accordingly, or run the risk of an ‘insurrection’.
Also we must consider that the potential UFO threat is not an intentional threat. The flying disc at O’Hare airport in 2006 was not an intentional threat, but it was a threat to the security of the airspace. What if a planes had collided with the UAP?
What if Navy Pilots collide with a Cube in mid air?
What if the tampering of nuclear weapons is unintentional, motiveless, but still causes counter strikes and tension between the U.S. and Russia? Is that still not a threat?
When we consider the ‘threat narrative’ we are talking about highly complex situations that transcend the simplified objection to, aliens blowing up an entire planet like in the film ‘Independence Day’.
The phenomenon, whether intentional or not, is a threat.
My own personal opinion: Tampering with nuclear weapons is an absolute threat. 100%. No real debate for me on this. Replace ‘UFO’ with ‘Russia’ and we have an act of war. Attributing intentions is another matter, ‘they’ may not even understand intentions like we do, or have consciousness like we do.
I do not know what these things are, and certainly won’t say they are not a threat until I know for certain. I get that it is challenging for most people who have spent a lot of time in this paradigm, I don’t expect people to acknowledge my opinions.
It is difficult. We have years and years and years of indoctrination that UFOs are friendly space brothers, that the government is creating an alien false flag operation and that we shouldn’t as activists use the word threat in association. None of this is verified or even known. For me, sources aren’t credible, and anyone who tells you what ‘this’ really is or what their intentions are, should be treated with high skepticism. In a way some people are actively trying to stop disclosure from happening, on the mistaken basis of these conspiracies about alien false flags, and not liking the concept that the space brothers might be a threat.
I’ll keep pushing the threat narrative because it works and because I believe ‘them’ to be a threat until proven otherwise.