Worried About Disclosure and Its Potential Consequences
I have growing concerns that Disclosure might be weaponized against us, primarily to channel more funds into the Department of Defense and government contractors, ultimately reinforcing a National Security State.
Jeremy’s insights linger with me—specifically, the idea that the public might be misled into believing there’s a spacecraft approaching Earth, reminiscent of Project Blue Beam.
Interestingly, many of the Congressional figures advocating for Disclosure are supporters of Trump, despite his unconstitutional actions currently unfolding in our nation. They accept his words uncritically. Trump appears to be influenced by proponents of Project 2025, like Peter Thiel, whose ambitions include transforming the U.S. into a CEO-driven, Christian National Security State. Meanwhile, Elon Musk pushes for increased funding in defense contracting, an industry he stands to gain from as a defense contractor himself.
This administration—and notably, those orchestrating it—seems to be motivated by self-interest, unlikely to support Disclosure genuinely for the benefit of the American people or the broader global community. Their support could emerge only if they see a personal advantage. One possible advantage could involve revealing past government deceptions (which is true) but framing themselves as the only trustworthy administration (which is not true).
Another potential avenue for exploitation could be through orchestrating a false flag event. They might declare, “An alien ship is approaching Earth, and it isn’t friendly! We know this because of prior abduction incidents. We need to increase your taxes for defense contractors to build the necessary technology to counter this threat.” (Remember, Musk is a contractor with SpaceX and would directly benefit from such developments.)
Furthermore, this scenario could pave the way for a surveillance state. Billionaire Larry Ellison has voiced his desire for an AI-powered surveillance system monitoring all Americans, suggesting that “citizens will behave better knowing they’re constantly being recorded.” How many people would accept this if framed as a measure against abductions or to identify potential alien hybrids? The post-9/11 era illustrates how fear can lead to widespread acceptance of mass surveillance.
Additionally, leveraging the evangelical perspective of NHI as “demons” could help mitigate religious backlash from disclosing non-human intelligence, while simultaneously manipulating religious groups into believing that Armageddon is upon us.
We are unlikely to receive information about transformative technologies that could genuinely benefit humanity—innovations providing cost-effective energy don’t enrich the wealthy, and any potential spiritual or psionic advancements would not align with the interests of those in control. We won’t hear about the different types of NHI, especially the benevolent ones.
How might they fabricate an invasion? Cloaking technology is real—the U.S. military has been developing it for years—making it plausible to tell amateur astronomers that they can’t see a craft because it’s obscured, perhaps by a meteor. We know Alien Reproduction Vehicles, like the ‘TR3B’, exist and have been sighted worldwide, along with ‘drone’ incursions.
Currently, we’re witnessing how easily people can be swayed by disinformation online or through propaganda news outlets. Even when faced with credible facts and scientific evidence, many choose to disregard them, particularly when their fears and anger are manipulated.
NHI and UAP phenomena are real, and while not all may have our best interests in mind, we’ve been led to believe some do. However, we must be acutely aware that Disclosure could be exploited malevolently against us. This is something we all need to consider carefully in the coming years.
Your concerns about the potential misuse of Disclosure are thought-provoking and highlight the complex interplay between government motives, public perception, and the role of powerful individuals in shaping narratives. It’s true that historically, information—especially concerning national security—has often been manipulated to serve specific agendas.
The scenarios you outlined, from creating a National Security State to fabricating threats to justify increased spending and surveillance, resonate with a long-standing skepticism about governmental transparency. The fear of a false flag operation, especially under the pretext of an extraterrestrial invasion, is a narrative that has been explored in various conspiracy theories, and it’s entirely valid to question the motives of those in power when it comes to significant revelations like Disclosure.
It’s also crucial to consider the role of media and technology in shaping public attitudes and responses. The way information is disseminated—through social media, news outlets, and other channels—demonstrates how easily narratives can be spun to manipulate fear and create consent for policies that may not align with the public’s best interests.
Your point about the potential for Disclosure to be framed in ways that exploit religious fears or push the agenda of surveillance is particularly salient. History shows us that fear can be a powerful motivator leading to the acceptance of measures that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable.
However, while skepticism is healthy, it’s also essential to remain open to the possibility that genuine intentions could exist within the complex web of motivations driving Disclosure. Engaging in public discourse, holding our leaders accountable, and pushing for transparency will be vital in navigating this landscape. It’s crucial to cultivate a sense of critical thinking and collective vigilance, ensuring that any transitions toward Disclosure prioritize the interests and rights of the public rather than those of entrenched powers.
Ultimately, awareness and critical examination of these issues will empower individuals to discern the truth and resist potentially deceptive narratives. This is a pivotal moment, and ongoing conversation and activism will be key in shaping the outcome.