If we are using the data available (and there is a lot) why does the public put so much extra stock in the Department of Defense to offer insights or even valid assessments? Let's look at their merits, transparency, cooperation, and honesty. Where is it? The only thing we truly have is a presumed merit. Because the Department of Defense is supposed to have the nation's safety in mind, right? Well let's look at the record: Endless war, destabilizing of political/religious regions and states, drone assassinations with large scale collateral death and damage, highest levels of secrecy, invasive spying on the entire planet through draconian means, they propose peace by means of violence or subversion, they destroy, pollute, covet, and dominate all aspects of the planet when it is convenient to their agenda, they allocate valuable funding that could build a better world for their own destructive power agenda.
Nothing really good there. No transparency, no honesty, no peaceful cooperation, just war, power, and control.
So they march out Lue Elizondo out to the public. He uses the same kind of vague double speak, hiding behind security clearances while chatting it up like some fun guy at the bar to the podcasters and YouTubers. He smiles and gives them bread crumbs like he's their pal. Same Lue goes on major media outlets and then plays somber man. "This is serious stuff, it may be a threat, it's potentially dangerous to national security."
This is the slow roll out to a declaration of war folks. It's all they really know, and it's all you should come to expect. They know that nuclear weapons are the problem (even WE know this), but nobody really is pulling away from it in any real sense, are they? In a political and media theater they claim to be, but they intend to keep these as a possible check mate option no matter what. This is another deception. They do it all the time.
Simply because they have nearly all the funding and best technology does not make them remotely close to a trustworthy source for truth and information. As wierd as he seems, I trust Steven Greer before Lue Elizondo. Why? Lets play "worst case/best case" based upon what they claim, potential outcomes of said claims, and likely motivations.
I'll start with Greer. He claims these entities are peaceful and intending to aid humanity into a new golden age on Earth. All it takes is our cooperation and the raising of conscience awareness. He makes money from his business model of public informant, which seems rather sketchy given the serious nature of the matter. He is distrustful of the DoD and their agendas and makes claims that they are complicit in a grand cover up. Worst case scenario, he is lying, and he laughs to the bank with a few million dollars. Best case is that he is correct, money won't mean anything anymore, and humanity will move on in peace and prosperity should we play our hands right with our wiser neighbors.
Now, Elizondo: I'm going to spend a great deal more time here, and for good reason. There is more to unpack. For starters, if you Google search his name the first line says Counterintelligence operative. Not even in the past tense, so consider that from the jump. He is just one man from a globally dominating and vast network of secrecy and covert operations. They have access to limitless funding, limitless authority, and limitless violence. Why he's being embraced as the public's hero for UAP's is baffling, and by my assessment, completely spurious. Money is of no motivating factor to him, because he is connected. So when he says he's not in it for money other than "to pay the bills," this is an appeal to you. That is YOUR LIFESTYLE he speaks of, not his. Connected men in the highest levels of government secrecy don't live check to check, but you probably do. So why else mention it other than to find a common thread? He is very vague about offering anything concrete, and really leaves it up to personal interpretation as to what we are encountering, with one exception. The threat narrative. It always comes back to this. No mention of benevolent actions or possible friendly intent. It just goes straight to threat, despite so far not being a threat for as long as we have been aware of the subject. I am reminded of the phrase "when your only tool is a hammer, all your toubles are nails."
Best/worst case scenario: Best case, we attempt to defend ourselves from an unknown only to not need it. The government still has our money that they didn't even ask for, but took. The planet still is in decline from climate change and we're doomed anyway. Worst case, we initiate a interspecies total war that eliminates life on Earth or humanity specifically from Earth.
Fake tears be damned, I'll put more faith in Greer over Elizondo.
TLDR; Greer and Elizondo are both suspicious in intent, but the potential results from buying in have potentially cataclysmic implications.
Submitted July 30, 2021 at 05:28AM by ChurchArsonist https://ift.tt/3xdOkNC
No comments:
Post a Comment