European Defence Industry Says It Will Crack Down On UFO & ET Discussion
In a recent tweet from the European Commission's Defense Industry and Space (DEFIS), they claimed they will begin to crack down on online discussion relating to Flat Earth, UFOs, and Aliens as they feel there is disinformation permeating all sectors of our society when it comes to these subjects. They intend on working with the EU Digital Services Act to put a plan in place in the coming months.
Who knows what their plan will look like when it's ready, but it falls in line with a rapidly building culture within government of taking mass control of narratives that are controversial and important to the general public. In the process, government and mainstream media seem to be the only ones allowed to have a voice anyone can hear.
At first glance, the move by DEFIS might seem a useful tactic, after all there is disinformation being spread about all of these topics. But who decides what is disinformation and what isn't? What if information is in fact real and suddenly that content is 'censored' in the wide net that is cast to stop this apparent problem? How will the public even know what is being censored and what is not? Will this push control over who can talk about and disseminate 'facts' about these topics to mainstream media and government only?
Before we might jump into the idea that my questions above may come from a paranoid mind, let's look at the facts.
There has been a long held veil of secrecy around the UFO subject for years. Governments deny realities that their own intelligence communities know are real. With the recent US Navy UFO videos that were released a couple of years ago, people began to realize that a subject long ridiculed was in fact heavily studied by governments, even as they pretended as if nothing was there. This caused a huge resurgence in a fascinating topic that deeply touches the very worldviews that inspire how we design and live our lives.
In 2017 when we all saw the US Navy footage released, did it not suggest that perhaps the US government had known about this phenomenon for decades? How long might government lie about other pieces of information related to the UFO topic before they come out saying it was true all along? Like they did in 2019, confirming the Navy footage was authentic.
Let's take a quick look at the next obvious question people ask when thinking about a UFO sighting: "Who is manning that craft? A human? An ET? Is it remote controlled?"
That question brings up the next: what evidence do we have of ET bodies? With this we inevitably all know that there is no publicly available evidence that suggest beyond any reasonable doubt that an ET body exists, however, we have credible whistleblowers from institutions many often trust who have stated quite clearly that government knows about different ET species and even has ET bodies. Do we trust them? Can we be more open to this reality given their testimony? If not, why do we trust these types of credentialed people for COVID information but not ET information?
Which leads to even bigger questions: do we really lack the information to make informed decisions about the UFO and ET phenomenon? Or are we too busy protecting our existing worldview to take an honest and unbiased look?
Popular By Design?
I also want to point out that I've noticed an interesting phenomenon take place within media as it relates to controversial conversations and it makes me hypothesize whether there are ulterior motives involving social engineering at play. I'll explain. But before I do, let me be clear, I don't support the idea of censorship or the banning of free speech. I don't believe certain people should be censored while others not.
It's no secret that in recent years, many people have been losing trust in government and mainstream media due to a lack of transparency, obvious agendas, and consistent lies. People have no reason to fully trust these sources anymore, and so they have looked elsewhere with different perspectives. As a result, independent media has gained a lot more influence when it comes to informing public perception. You might imagine that those with a monopoly on information might not be too happy about this. Powerful and wealthy people who enjoy having the media outlets they bought to influence public perception would see a loss in their power as well.
When I think of things like the resurgence of the 'flat earth' discussion that began years ago on Reddit, YouTube, and other social media sites, I wonder how and why this random topic blows up in pop culture instead of fizzling out like so many other trends do.
With flat earth, people began adamantly claiming that beyond all reasonable doubt, the earth was flat, and this was the biggest secret kept from humanity. Huge YouTube channels popped up, documentaries were made about it, and major NBA and pop culture influencers were all on board.
I decided to look into it all for a few days, and as an open minded person and journalist who spends a ton of time reading paranormal and supernatural research, the evidence and arguments for a flat earth were bad. I didn't see any reason to take it seriously. This doesn't mean I wouldn't look at a new piece of evidence should someone provide one, but from having looked into the subject, there really isn't anything there that is worth time in exploring further.
Is it possible that subjects like this are seeded out into the collective consciousness to see what people will pick up on? What they will believe? Perhaps an experiment by intelligence agencies who seem obsessed with sniffing habits, data, and culture through mass surveillance?
The resurgence of flat earth and the amount of clout it was getting in pop culture made me feel odd. Was it being placed into large conversations and given so much algorithmic power on social media so that a topic so obviously wrong can now be the focus of a pointing finger that says: "see, look what happens when people talk online, they believe crazy things." I wasn't incredibly convinced by my theory, but I was open to it. However it was further solidified when the Q phenomenon took over next.
The Q phenomenon, or as it's known in the mainstream 'Qanon,' is based on the idea that a secret group of 'patriots behind Donald Trump were working to pull off an intelligence operation to inform the public that Trump and team were poised to take down an evil cabal that ran the world. This subject was everywhere. Mainstream media covered it constantly, using it to show how everyone who believed in it were unhinged, crazy, conspiracy theorists who likely had sociopathic tendencies. It made its way into politics and was brought up in countless mainstream discussions leading into the 2020 US election. It became a clear cultural position: "if you believe in Qanon and the subjects related to it, you're a dangerous and crazy conspiracy theorist."
Once that was clear and in place, mainstream pundits and other pop culture voices began using "Qanon" to take down anyone who believed in discussing any other controversial subject. Vaccines, COVID, UFOs, Aliens, you name it - if you wanted to ask questions about these topics in a way that was not accepted in the mainstream, you might as well be one of those crazy "Qanon" people.
Then comes the discussion of evidence. For "Q" it was one of those you either believe or you don't type conspiracies. But with so many of the other topics being systematically linked to Q, like vaccines or UFOs, does it matter if there is actual evidence to support the controversial conversations people are having? It would appear that it doesn't, because the culture had made any of these subjects synonymous with the more extreme and unfounded views seen within Q enthusiasts.
Did the Q phenomenon become a useful tool for censorship? An opportunity to grab hold of every controversial narrative and say no one can talk about this except for trusted sources, or else look... crazy Qanon people will shoot up Capitol Hill if we don't stop all of this madness.
Back in the summer of 2020 I wrote an essay called "Conspireality: Time for a Serious Conversation?" It's purpose was to have a discussion about the fact that YES, conspiracy is real, it exists, and your government lies to you, we know this for a fact, but it doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. It also goes on to suggest that we have to be more discerning in critical in our thinking and exploration of these topics, as some information is flat out false and it takes away from the legitimate information that can be focused on to create change.
Further, it suggests that if we aren't careful as a culture, big tech and governments will work to shut down any inquiry into these topics as too many are going about it in an unbalanced way, often with no evidence or fake evidence. It's my feeling that this approach doesn't help with meaningful progression and conversation, but actually pulls down all conversation around controversial topics.
So I asked, are people going about this information in that manner actually speeding up the censorship process? After all, much of what they post is indeed false.
I said, and still say, all of this with first hand experience. Having had our social media accounts shut down, demonetized, our website removed from Google news, all because we talk about subjects that sound like the 'crazy Qanon people or flat earthers.' It doesn't matter that we go about these subjects in a credible, evidence based manner, we are guilty by association. This inevitably led me to ask: is it possible that powerful social engineers actually spent time focusing deeply on some of these extreme topics purposefully, to set up a call and need to take down that which was obviously false, and bring down all other 'uncontrollable' yet truth-filled conversations in the process?
I can't help but see that these subjects acted as a magnet to suck all sound alike conversations into the abyss of censorship. And even as we watched it all happened, many of my colleagues criticized me for simply bringing forth the question: should we be thinking more critically about which conspiracies are real and which are not, and how we might go about having a more grounded conversation about it all so that mass culture doesn't cancel ALL conversation?