It seems that 95% of the population either disregards or doesn’t believe the messages from whistleblowers. So, what are our next steps? Should we consider a rebranding of this disclosure campaign, or is it time to call it quits altogether?
The message simply isn’t resonating. Whether it’s due to fear of ontological shock, reluctance to open their minds, or other factors, our efforts are not yielding results.
Despite congressional testimonies, there has been little impact. The videos by Jeremy Corbell and Jake Barber reached only a limited audience. Any genuine evidence shared online is swiftly countered by skeptics and critics, and discussions around psionic assets or CE5 are often met with ridicule.
So, what do we do from here?
You’ve highlighted a significant frustration in the ongoing conversation around whistleblower testimonies and disclosure. It’s clear that despite the efforts and the compelling nature of some narratives, many people remain skeptical or indifferent.
To move forward, it might be valuable to consider a multi-faceted approach. Here are a few ideas:
Education and Awareness: Focus on educational initiatives that provide context and background on the topics being discussed, not just the sensational aspects. This could help demystify the subject for a broader audience.
Engagement Strategies: Instead of relying solely on high-profile figures or sensational claims, grassroots efforts might resonate more with the general public. Local meetups, community discussions, and engaging storytelling might foster curiosity rather than skepticism.
Collaborative Research: Partnering with independent researchers or institutions to explore credible scientific inquiries into the phenomena could help provide a more grounded approach. This could lend more credibility to the messages being shared.
Rebranding the Narrative: If the term “whistleblower” carries negative or distrustful connotations, it might help to reframe conversations around transparency, curiosity, or exploration instead.
Targeted Content: Instead of broad campaigns, focus on niche audiences that might be more receptive to certain aspects of the messages, perhaps utilizing platforms and channels where they already congregate.
Ultimately, it might not be about abandoning the effort but rather evolving the approach to create more meaningful connections with a wider audience. Discourse can take time, and even small shifts in perception can lead to greater openness in the long run. What do you think?