UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 7

Social Resistance To Unconventional Wisdom

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:33:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:35:03 -0400
Subject: Social Resistance To Unconventional Wisdom

This was posted on a new energy listserver but is equally
applicable here.


<From a paper produced by Ingo Swann for the Intelligence
Community (aka the CIA) on Social Resistance to Psi.>

Three of the major observations of this report establishes the

(1) Since doubt is considered a legitimate function within
intellectual processes, the role of those who doubt is given
more legitimacy than those who do not doubt. Were this not so
then the meaning of doubt would become vague.

(2) When doubt is superimposed on direct human experiencing,
then the doubt assumes a priority because of its perceived
legitimacy. The superimposition then results in a subtle shift
of focus away from examining the direct human experiencing and
reinstalls the focus within the contexts of the various
intellectualisms that have become involved.

(3) The history of intellectualisms demonstrates (a) that they
have relatively short terms of social fashionability, and (b)
that they tend to be elitist in nature because the larger
populations either do not, or cannot, share in them.

Combining these three observations results in a fourth: that
doubt is relative to social enclaves and is thus only transitory
against larger issues that remain permanent within the direct
experiential thresholds of our species.

Reducing these four observations to a possibly crude level,
skeptics and debunkers come and go --- but the experiencing
thresholds of the species remain the same. The experiencing
thresholds are therefore perpetual. Skepticism that advocates
doubt regarding something perpetual is relevant only to the
transitory intellectual boundaries within which it has arisen.

As an apt illustration of the above, Albert Einstein introduced
his special theory of relativity in 1905 while he was still a
student and working in the patent office in Switzerland. The
skeptical responses regarding the theory, and him as a scientist
and man, were not only noisy but exceedingly --voluminous.--

By 1925, historians appraised that the Einstein "debate" had
accumulated the largest printed paper volume ever.

When the special theory was proven correct between 1927 and
1929, it was shown that relativity was perpetual --- naturally
existing and true. The skeptical and debunking responses were
shown as transitory, however ardent and voluminous they had
been. None of the names of Einstein's skeptics are remembered.
And this is the ignominious fate of most skeptics --- because
the times and tides of discovery march on and forget they

The verb "debunk" means "to expose the sham of falseness of
something." Debunking is therefore a valuable function and
always has been --- in that certain specimens of our species
like to engineer sham and falseness in order to benefit from

Implicit in the term, however, is the distinction between (1)
exposing --after the fact of examination, and (2) accusing
--before the fact. In this double sense, the term can take on
Machiavellian efficiency.

"Machiavellianism" refers to Machiavelli's political theory that
politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can
justifiably be used in achieving political power or purposes.

The introduction of Machiavellianism into skepticism and
debunking runs counter to their original ethical function and
sets up lachrymose contexts so labyrinthine that very few can
negotiate them. Indeed, Machiavellianism can only be effective
provided the labyrinthine contexts cannot be unravelled.

As but one example of Machiavellian debunking, though, I refer
the truly interested to the paper entitled "Science Versus
Showmanship: A History of the Randi Hoax" by Michael A.
Thalbourne just published in The Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research (Oct. 1995, Vol.89, No. 4).

--Resistance-- to such research --before-- the facts of the
superpowers can be ascertained is therefore puzzling.

The only possible explanation must involve not discoverable
facts which could speak for themselves but --motives and

Most of us recognize that this is the usual case regarding most
human confusions --- assuming that mere stupidity or lack of
knowledge are not involved as the first instance. But the
introduction of motives and agendas further complicates this
particular situation already lamentably labyrinthine in its
overall character.

The etymological history of the term "skepticism" shows that it
has undergone several definition formats and social applications
since it was first coined in ancient Greece --- down until today
when it is almost exclusively taken as referring to someone
opposed to the "paranormal" and anything resembling them.

During the Renaissance period, when the schism between science
and religion started up, skepticism was largely taken as
referring to "doubt concerning basic religious principles" such
as immortality, providence, revelation, the existence of the
soul, etc. This is to say that --skepticism-- was then used
almost as a synonym for anti-religion on behalf of sequestering
the evolving sciences from it.

The ethical, and even logical goal of the true skeptic is to
resolve doubt by identifying facts, not to reinforce doubt in
the absence of discovered facts --- and certainly not to
underwrite Machiavellian debunking tactics to prevent the needed

True skepticism does not --begin-- by being anti- anything. The
processes of open consideration and examination (i.e., research)
will ultimately establish whether something exists or not.

There is hardly no other way via which doubt, belief, or
confusions between them can be resolved on behalf of acquiring
increases in knowledge. And this is especially true as regards
the true extent of human sentiency --- for sentient beings have
an inalienable bio-mind right to know of the true extent of
their sentiency.

If such a skeptic is utilizing the conventional definitions of
the modern mainstream sciences and philosophies --which have
neither considered nor researched the unconventional, then such
a skeptic is utilizing nothing at all except hearsay or
prejudice based on it. Clearly those who --have-- attempted to
research the unconventional know more about them than those who
never have made the attempt --- just as conventional modern
scientists and philosophers have not.

Here is the basis for a pogrom. A "pogrom" is defined as "an
organized massacre of helpless people." Such a pogrom regarding
"sensitives" took place during the Inquisitions of the Middle
Ages. Some historians estimate the high body count at 9 million
over a 300-year period. Ridicule and defamation during modern
times of sensitives and researchers of the unconventional is a
kind of pogrom, especially when supported in the mainstream

It is interesting indeed why in our scientific times there
should be such a pogrom that victimizes our species
unconventional views with its marvelous spectrum of sentiency.
It may be that someone somewhere doesn't want that marvelous
spectrum to be identified and DEVELOPED.

<end of message>

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com