In Richard Dolan's books and lectures [particularly his book, After Disclosure], I have heard him advance the idea of a separate civilization forming - one behind the curtain of secrecy. I find this idea fascinating, even if I tend to remain a bit discerning about any specific source or leak from behind the curtain of secrecy. Yet If any of these anonymous sources are to be believed, the implications are truly profound. They imply that we have far more advanced technology at humanity's disposal than most of us have even imagined.
While secrecy itself makes me angry, the prospect that we might actually have some of the elements of technology similar to that of the visitors actually brings me a form of optimism. It means we have an effort to achieve military and technological parity with the uninvited guests in our skies. Perhaps we may even be on the road to asserting human authority over Earth by developing capabilities equivalent to the visitors.
This road is a risky one to travel. If we are indeed embarking on such a road, then does it mean we're considering tweaking the nose of the big boys? If so, we need to be prepared for what the big boys do in response. It raises some intriguing possibilities - and a whole lot of concerns for the rest of we humans...
During high school and college history classes, I studied quite a bit the history of many civilizations on Earth who came in contact with western society. The Native Americans and the Chinese, to name a few, found themselves at a military disadvantage when facing a technological superior western military. The result - the European conquest of North America, the fall of the Aztec and Inca empires, and the disintegration of the Chinese empire.
Each indigenous civilization found themselves at a disadvantage. Yet a great debate among historians, and very likely within the civilizations themselves, was, what was that disadvantage? Was it purely military, or was it a weakness in the society itself?
In China, in the late 1800's and early 1900's, the debate raged. Some within the Chinese imperial government argued that by strengthening the army and navy, they could defeat the western imperialists. What was needed was a purely military solution - maybe some more advanced tactics, technology, etc. Perhaps all they needed were a few more guns.
Others, on the other hand, argued that at its core, they needed to fundamentally restructure society, itself. Perhaps weaknesses in the way the society was built made them vulnerable to the outside. If so, then perhaps it was a weakness that no amount of augmented military would overcome. Perhaps ineffective leadership and a collapsing infrastructure made military victory impossible. Far more than a few more guns, perhaps the entire society needed to be rebuilt.
The result was the rise of Sunyat Sen, formation of Kuomintang, and the attempts to form a western government. At the same time, another western philosophy took hold, that of Marxism, Mao and the communist movement. Far from a few more guns, the ultimate result was indeed, a fundamental restructuring of society, for better or for worse. Now, once again, China is rising as a global power, eclipsing the USA in economic and military strength and playing our own game of geopolitical ambition.
In the Americas, military conquest also resulted in a near-total remake of many of the indigenous societies. In this case, destruction was nearly total and the remake was vast. Today, we see an indigenous movement rising, with a very different focus from the life originally envisioned.
Militarily, in the case of the Native Americans, unless they had united early in the history of European conquest, they could never have repelled the invasion. The fundamental political and social structure of tribal North America would never have permitted this unity. Conquest by a unified technological enemy was the result and a few more guns would hardly have helped. The same could be said for nearly any other indigenous society that came to grief at the hands of the west.
So, what does this imply for humanity's relationship with the visitors? Is our relationship to the visitors analogous to that of the indigenous societies worldwide in the face of western colonization? Is human sovereignty over Earth in peril? According to Marshall Vian Summers, this is exactly the case. Similarly, Dr. David Jacobs builds the case that the alien abduction phenomenon is dedicated to somehow replacing or assimilating humanity - a kind of stealth conquest.
On a more immediate level, any interaction between the military and the visitors has shown that in the event of hostilities, humans wouldn't stand a chance. The visitors have far superior technology to anything humanity has. The Air Force "dogfights" of the 1950s with UFOs, and similar accounts from the Soviet Union, show that UFOs can far outfly anything humanity can put in the sky. UFO incursions over military bases have demonstrated that the visitors can pretty much do as they please, with little challenge from us.
We are lucky that the visitors are not overtly hostile. If they do bear us ill intent, it must be in a much more subtle way. Still, it is the job of any nation's military to assert that nation's sovereignty over its territory. Similarly, at a global level, we can imagine aggregate human military(ies) tasked with doing the same thing - maintaining human sovereignty over Earth. In the face of superior visitor technology, this would seem a hopeless task. Thus I can imagine one approach would probably be to try and achieve some degree of technological parity with the visitors.
In one view, perhaps we can develop "a few more guns" to help us face the visitors.
An approach to retaining sovereignty over Earth might be to match - or even exceed - the military ability of the visitors. Thus, we can imagine an urgent effort to develop the technology needed to police our own planet. If we are to somehow face down our visitors from the stars we will need a tremendous leap forward. In a way, we can think of this as an extreme case of "a few more guns."
Yet humanity is hardly united. We are largely a feudal world, broken up into countless nation states with different (often opposing) agendas. We humans pledge ourselves to individual nations, rather than to the world of humanity. Thus, any national effort to develop advanced technology would be seen by potential opponents as threatening. Given the political state of the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, we can probably understand the need for secrecy.
In addition, if as Marshall Summers and David Jacobs claim, we are already deeply infiltrated, it would be even more necessary to maintain secrecy. The last ones we would want to know about our effort would be our potential opponents, the visitors.
Thus, behind the curtain, we can imagine a crash development effort going on, trying to develop (very) advanced flight, star travel, telepathic communication, inter-dimensional shift capabilities, non-local technologies, and the list goes on. If what many disclosure advocates claim is true, we may already be well on the way to achieving much of this capability. Yet it would be hidden behind a deep curtain of secrecy - a civilization behind the curtain.
In a scenario of world disunity, are we any different from the diverse and non-unified tribes of North America facing the European onslaught? Furthermore, our focus is largely technological, rather than spiritual. Our society is focused in a 3D, materialistic paradigm. While we are in this mindset, will we ever be able to understand what makes the visitors tick?
Will we ever be able to do what they do unless we begin to think the way they think?Would our society as it is structured now, ever be able to cope with full contact with the visitors? Or do we risk ending up the same way as indigenous cultures at the hands of European imperialists? Like the indigenous cultures, as time progresses, perhaps we need to fully restructure society. Perhaps we need to fully change the way we think, to fully reorganize the way our world is built.
I just finished reading the book "The Akashic Age" by Irwin Laszlo, which talks about this very phenomenon. It looks at the Occupy movement, the various grassroots movements within 21st Century society, etc. It looks at life as we move from 2012 into the world of 2030 and builds the case that we are undergoing that very change.
In The Cosmic Bridge, we also examine the idea of spiritual emergence. I build on the ideas of Barbara Marx Hubbard, that we are in the process of a breakthrough in human consciousness. In my article, The Indigo Hypothesis, I propose that as part of the close encounter phenomenon, the family lines of experiencers are somehow injected with characteristics conducive to further emergence.
Perhaps rather than coming as invaders, a visitor agenda might be to prevent the very thing we most worry about, the disintegration of the lower-technology civilization on contact with the higher technology one. Perhaps the visitors recognize the change we need to make. If they are indeed a more benevolent society, perhaps they - or some faction within their society - wish to bring the necessary changes within our world before full contact occurs.
Yet I suspect that in the human world, hidden behind a veil of secrecy, frenzied technological work goes on. And in a way, perhaps we need both spiritual development and technological development. Yet ultimately we can wonder, are the two compatible? Or are they based upon mutually exclusive philosophies?
Like the indigenous societies of the 18th and 19th centuries facing the Western juggernaut, perhaps we need to fully remake ourselves. Or instead, like some of the more conservative advocates in those societies maintained, perhaps we need a only to boost our military strength? Maybe all we need are "a few more guns."
