I recently watched a YouTube video on recent and imminent events in the USA relating to ETs/UFOs/UAPs. One of the three hosts is a woman I respect in this field: the other two I had not heard of.
The video was reasonable, if overly long - it is evidently intended to be a regular feature, and, as with many specialist features (in politics, as well as alternatives) it is likely to be too long for me to watch - or to watch properly.
However, that is not why I am writing this post: I am writing this post because I was shocked to hear former potus45 mentioned favourably, as at least two of the hosts seemed to think that person was likely to bring about what many in the ET/UFO/UAP field describe as disclosure - which is an alleged revelation of “facts” that “prove” the existence of UFO/UAP and as being of an extraterrestrial source.
I have doubts that such proof exists, when viewed objectively, and I also think that sort of viewpoint misses the spiritual importance of the majority of such influences - although people such as Mr Grant Cameron, Steven M Greer, to some extent Whitley Strieber, and others are writing about that aspect (I still consider the 1970s book “Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth” the best on that aspect).
Related to that spiritual perspective is that former potus45 is one of the most evil, hateful, and destructive politicians we have seen in decades - in fact, I consider there is a reasonable argument that that person is the worst the world has seen since 1945.
This raises the importance of not having a narrow, blinkered view of your heroixes (I use heroix as a non-gendered version of the binary terms hero and heroine).
Other examples of that problem are:
- thinking a former pope who was rabidly anti-LGBTIQA+ was good because of work done towards peace (the blinkers are on both positions mentioned there);
- thinking only of Gandhi's work for peace and ignoring his flaws, which I wrote about here.
Our current Prime Minister who completely undoes his otherwise progressiveness by being a transphobe is another example of the need for cautious objectivity and balance.
Life has - and people - “shades of grey”/nuance/complexity: it behoves all of us to make sure we take a broader view of both those we admire and those we are critical of, but be objectively critical when necessary.
“We
can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is
rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.
Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.
