Imagine for a few moments if you will, if we Americans or anybody for that matter, lived in a world where full disclosure was normal behavior.

We could look each other honestly in the eye and simply tell the truth. Talking heads and political pretenders would simply just “go away”, perhaps to be employed as janitors or garbage collectors. Presidential wanna-Be’s wouldn’t fill the airwaves with their endless broken promises and rhetoric. We’d be spared the nearly unbearable torture of having to endure their failures, again and again. Our bosses, spouses, friends and even family members would be respected by us, and us by them.

Liars, deceivers and the “less-then-truthful” profiteers would be banished from our lives. The Internet would be uncluttered from all the hucksters, hype and scam artists.  All would be right in the world, we’d no longer have to deal with dishonesty, deception, delusion or even the uncomfortable feelings of  the belated discovery that we’ve been incessantly lied to — by everybody, everywhere, endlessly.

Or would it? Would full disclosure actually change anything?

Probably not.

UFO DisclosureI just read a report where the NSA (National Security Administration) gives allegedly official “disclosure” to alien intelligence.

Titled “Key To The Extraterrestrial Messages”, the following document link (pdf) is from the NSA’s own website and Technical Journal.

Hmmm. Supposedly recorded by Sputnik (yes, that Sputnik), the NSA has finally released “proof” that we are not alone.

There is more here on the UFO Digest: Official ET Disclosure? –> “NSA Document Admits ET Contact” By Kevin W. Smith

Have you stopped reading yet? Or have you already made up your mind? How does “disclosure” of something like this affect you? Has your worldview now been changed? Keep reading.

Disclosure of any significant event is bound to have a huge impact — or so we would think. But we could very well be dead wrong. This disclosure hasn’t resulted in much of anything.

Really? Really. Here’s why:

Ethnocentrism is our world-view of “others” and how it relates to “us”, specifically to “you”. Your port-hole view of how things are, and how things “should” be. Depending upon your level of awareness, open-mindedness and even intelligence, your perception of your group affiliation and you is the “center of everything”, and the basis by which you will judge everything else.

This means that with something like this, the announcement and discovery of alien life will either be meaningful, perhaps scary, or frightening or maybe even of no particular interest to you, depending upon your group affiliation.

For the record, I will reiterate: this particular disclosure hasn’t resulted in much of anything.

But why? Wouldn’t this be a significant event, at least to UFO buffs and alien abductees?

Actually, no. They’re already convinced of the truth of the matter. Their group affiliation gives them a port-hole view of what they “already know to be true”. So there was no uproar or anything coming from this crowd.alien

But what about you? If you were not aware of this disclosure, how does it now make you feel?

Uncomfortable? Uneasy? Excited? Imagine what this could mean…. perhaps an entire flotilla of ships headed our way to either wreck havoc or benevolence upon humanity. Maybe they eat meat… lots and lots of meat... Or maybe they are pure energy and no Earthly resources are of any particular interest to them (including us). Maybe…. maybe….

There are virtually an endless series of “maybe’s” of the things which we do not know. All we can do is speculate on what this means. This “disclosure” affects us only in our minds at this time, as our imagination takes off like a rockets leaving Earth’s gravitational pull, exploring all the various possibilities, shooting among the stars, some of them frightening, some exciting, but all of them virtually unknowns at this time.

But wow! Can you just imagine!!!

I can, easily. And I’m taking you on this journey for a reason, so that your mind will open up to the discoveries now being made.

I am not a UFO buff, preferring to keep my feet and my mind solidly planted on Terra firma. There is where I find my reality. My port-hole view shows me a different world then what some other people are “seeing”. But it IS still a port-hole, even I know that. Therefore, it is vitally important that I keep an open-mind to the events that are changing the world — and the view from my own port-hole.

If you haven’t read the link above, please do so now before going any further.

Now, knowing this information, I want you to read the following, NSA Practices Deciphering ET Signals.

There, we learn the truth of the matter — the NSA has not actually made a “disclosure” of alien intelligence, there have simply been a lot of smart people involved in making practice runs of how they might decipher an alien message.

Okay then. Disappointed? Relieved? Pissed off?

These were hypothetical exercises, but seized upon by those with the port-hole view that they were “real”.

We see an awful lot of this kind of thing these days, people with very narrow world-views that only permit them to “see” what their group affiliations allow them to see (this is one reason why I will not join anything, not even a “membership list”). No one group or affiliation or worldview knows everything, it is simply not possible. We’re much too limited to grasp it all. But we tend to forget this simple fact and can find ourselves “insisting” that our worldview or opinion or experience or “truth” is all that there is.

Well, it’s not. Not even close. It’s just an itsy-bitsy, teeny tiny part of the bigger picture, of all the things that actually ARE going on.

Disclosure then, even if extremely common and widespread, would simply mean we would still be subject to our port-hole views. Perhaps slightly-widening port-holes, but perhaps not even that. Most likely, things would not change very much.

This then leads me to the so-called “truth movement”, which posits the basic underlying belief, virtually a cornerstone of every movement, that says that “if we only enough of us knew the truth, then we could finally change things”.

The “truth”, whatever it is you believe it to be, changes nothing. Even if your port-hole, group affiliation or worldview is suddenly shifted (expanded, reduced, or changed), the truth DOES NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. Everything remains the same as it was before.

This flies in the face of common wisdom — but only because like many “truths”, the only part that is grasped and commonly used is this oft-misused declaration: “The truth shall set you free”.

You can declare whatever truth you feel like, whatever fits within your port-hole view of the world, such as “Aliens are among us”, or “Niburu will impact the Earth in 2012”, or “My father was a space goat” or whatever you want. You could even declare a real truth, such as “burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere”.  But nothing actually changes, does it?

The truth-movement believes, like all group affiliations believe, that “truth” is “change”. Yet truth is not change. Truth is simply truth, a port-hole view of things and nothing more.

If there is to be change, this can only come from within you. Change isn’t even external, although we very often perceive it that way (another port-hole). Truth can help us change because we are uncomfortable. We do not change if we are comfortable, we only change when we are not. Exposing oneself to “the truth” is the same thing as changing your port-hole view to see something new and different. If you don’t like the view, you can always go back to the way it was before. Sometimes you can’t however, some views can be seared into your brain, making you uncomfortable, and you can’t go back.

Change then only occurs (with all species, as far as I know) when we are uncomfortable. We’ll sit around the trough, day and night, living in absolute squalor and disgust, as long as we are comfortable. We’ll even overheat the entire planet, extinguishing all life on its surface, as long as we still remain comfortable. Truth can only “change us” when we decide we’ve had enough of the way things are, and then go about doing something different to change it. Otherwise, truth doesn’t do much of anything at all, because we can take it or leave it, accept it or reject it, but only if it forces us to change ourselves, does truth have any “power” at all. Otherwise, it’s just another one of those campaign promises that never seems to come to pass.

Earlier, I wrote that “Disclosure of any significant event is bound to have a huge impact — or so we would think”. I can think of a lot of significant events that have not had a big impact, did not garner a large following, nor did they really change much of anything at all. Cognitive dissonance is one reason, but there is another so obvious that we overlook it. We are all aware of the basic question that says, “How does this change my life?”. New discoveries, “truths” now disclosed, do not necessarily change much of anything in the average persons life. Recent reports of microbiological life on Mars does not actually make for a brighter day, unless you’re a exobiologist. But it IS significant nonetheless.

Our port-hole tells us which of these truths are important, and which are not, depending on your port-hole. This can actually be a bit dangerous for us all, individually and collectively, because we already know our port-holes are pretty limited, only allowing “through” what we can easily accept and especially those things that don’t make us too uncomfortable. Humans will go to some rather great and extreme lengths to stay comfortable (to wit, our entire civilization is built towards this end). Denial then, becomes a self-defeating refuge — but only for our minds, where we get to nourish and coddle “our truth” for as long as it may be allowed. We’re still going to have to subject our bodies — and our lives to the every-day reality  — and even some very unusual events.

Warning: what follows is real truth, specifically meant to institute a new port-hole view of things:

He offers advice to journalists in covering climate change — and advice to the rest of us in a world captured by denial.

The piece helps dispel the myth that climate scientists have long been overhyping climate impacts — when everyone who actually follows climate science and talks to any significant number of climate scientists knows that the reverse is true. As Blakemore writes:

Established scientists, community and government leaders and journalists, as they describe the disruptions, suffering and destruction that manmade global warming is already producing, with far worse in the offing if humanity doesn’t somehow control it, are starting to allow themselves publicly to use terms like “calamity,” “catastrophe”, and “risk to the collective civilization”….

A few years ago, this reporter heard a prominent climate and environment scientist speaking at a large but off-the-record conference of experts and policy makers from around the world who had gathered at Harvard University’s Kennedy School….

He told us that he and most other climate scientists often simply didn’t want to speak openly about what they were learning about how disruptive and frightening the changes of manmade global warming were clearly going to be for “fear of paralyzing the public.”

That speaker now has an influential job in the Obama administration.

Climate scientists have been consistently downplaying and underestimating the risks for three main reasons. First, their models tended to ignore the  myriad amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks that we now know are kicking in (such as the defrosting tundra).

Second, they never imagined that the nations of the world would completely ignored their warnings, that we would knowingly choose catastrophe. So until recently they hardly ever seriously considered or modeled the do-nothing scenario, which is a tripling (820 ppm) or quadrupling (1100 ppm) of preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide over the next hundred years or so. In the last 2 or 3 years, however, the literature in this area has exploded and the picture it paints is not pretty (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces“).

Third, as Blakemore (and others) have noted, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are generally reticent and cautious in stating results — all the more so in this case out of the mistaken fear that an accurate diagnosis would somehow make action less likely. Yes, it’d be like a doctor telling a two-pack-a-day patient with early-stage emphysema that their cough is really not that big a deal, but would they please quit smoking anyway. We live in a world, however, where anyone who tries to explain what the science suggests is likely to happen if we keep doing nothing is attacked as an alarmist by conservatives, disinformers, and their enablers in the media.

Back in 2005, the physicist Mark Bowen wrote about glaciologist Lonnie Thompson: “Scientists have an annoying habit of backing off when they’re asked to make a plain statement, and climatologists tend to be worse than most.”

The good news, if you can call it that, is that the climate situation has become so dire that even the most reticent climatologists are starting to speak more bluntly. By the end of 2010, Thompson was writing:

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

Blakemore points out some other climate scientists who are starting to speak out:

A few days ago in the New York Times, a thoroughgoing front page article about global warming quoted a range of scientists on the overall effect of the global upheavals that can be expected from manmade global warming. Here are three excerpts — bolded highlights mine:

  • “‘The big damages come if the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases turns out to be high,’ said Raymond T. Pierre-humbert, a climate scientist at the University of Chicago. ‘Then it’s not a bullet headed at us, but a thermonuclear warhead.’” (Recent scientific studies report the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is proving to be higher than expected.)
  • “Ultimately, as the climate continues warming and more data accumulate, it will become obvious how clouds are reacting. But that could take decades, scientists say, and if the answer turns out to be that catastrophe looms, it would most likely be too late.”
  • “‘Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, “We’re sure it’s not a problem,” ‘ said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. ‘It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.’

‘A Risk to the Collective (Global) Civilization’

Global warming’s “risk to the collective civilization” (meaning global civilization) has been continually spoken of in secret or unofficial or private conversations among engaged climate scientists and government and policy leaders around the world.

Such terms — catastrophe, threat to civilization itself — have been commonplace in carefully worded private discussions among peer-reviewed experts that this reporter and other journalists have often experienced and sometimes engaged in.

I heard that from many, many  climate scientists in private as far back as 2005 and 2006, which is why I titled my book, Hell and High Water. Other journalists heard the same, which is why, for instance, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote at the time:

“It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

‘Hug The Monster’: Why So Many Climate Scientists Have Stopped Downplaying the Climate Threat

The amazing thing about all of this is how much press the media will give Hollywood stars and the latest sports scores. We would MUCH rather hear or read just about anything else, we’ll even sit through another stupid Justin Beiber song.  Imagine that.

Scientific reticence may be on the wane, but what still actually matters is not the truth of what they’re saying, but whether we are going to finally sit up and listen and change our ways. The message may be more dire the ever before, but it is after all, the same message as before, it hasn’t change much (and it hasn’t gotten better either).  “Thermonuclear warhead” ought to get our attention — finally, but I will not lay any bets on it.  Posts and pictures of UFO’s and aliens will probably get some people to read down just far enough to lose interest once the real meat is served up. They’d rather go eat that fake pink-meat shit at McDeath.

The bottom line is “refusal to change”.  Refusal to open up the port-hole view and change the channel. Refusal to be uncomfortable and realize that this stuff is going to get really, really ugly and very, very uncomfortable — our very way of life is at risk.

But disclosure does not make it go away.  And disclosure does not change anything.

How could it?  We’re to enamored with the status-quo, seemingly incapable of even envisioning anything else except more of the same.

I’m personally taking a very keen interest in what this means, working very hard to ensure that there is a personal safety net in place for my family and I. I believe that this is a critical and essential step towards our future security, not to be taken lightly or haphazardly. It’s as serious a threat as if an alien invasion was about to take place.  For those of you that skipped the meat, the next entree’ will be all of you.

It’s no fun at all to know and understand how truth can become virtually powerless in the face of ‘no change’. The status-quo that exist can only be overcome when we ourselves decide to change. When things get so damned hot or uncomfortable or dry or flooded or inundated with salt water or overrun with climate refugees — we’ll change, or try to.  But it hardly goes without saying that it will be far, far too late then. If change is to happen, it must come right now.

I also enjoyed this, more meat for the aged: Must-Read: The Powerful Final Words Of Ecotopia Author Ernest Callenbach



admin at survivalacres dot com

Leave a Reply