Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: lostgirl

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
in fact only a few actual stories in circulation but infinite variations there of.

Oh, I know - "Hero With a Thousand Faces" and all that...

...which actually leads us back on topic (in the recent 'direction' it had turned, at any rate), with the question of the 'control system' and it's use of 'story/archetypes' and what the possible 'goal' of such stuff - as those "dreams are made on" (sorry, couldn't resist) - might be...

I mean to say, with so many generations, upon generations, upon generations of the same 'stories' over and over again - doesn't it seem that by now the control system would have had some success at "growing" civilization into a more 'idealistic' reality?

Civilization cannot grow into a more 'idealistic' reality as long as religion rules for in order for civilization to progress mental conditioning has to end and there is no end in sight. "Civil-ization) is doomed to war-mongering as you can see by studying history up to the present. Idealistic is atheism which is a natural state when you are born but is soon corrupted by mental condition favoring religious beliefs.

Control is being exercised by religion at home and in governments. And if you try to go afoul of them you are digging your grave. You can see that in effect right now with the US gov't: you speak against Israel and your life is worth-less.

While Vallee may have had other meanings to his "control system" the truth is that only the weak minded are affected, not us strong-willed free thinkers.

Unfortunately, even us strong-willed free thinkers are under some sort of control by the weak minded called politicians. Fortunately, I'm aware of this situation and I'm not directly affected.

I agree that organized religion has caused huge problems, however mental conditioning exists in many forms and is not limited to religion. Your parents probably conditioned you to not gallop around the house naked in front of visitors and to not eat the dog's food. Later, you were conditioned to wait your turn in line and to file your taxes and to be wary when you see someone walking toward you in a dark alley. Hopefully, you've been conditioned to not fart and spit, at least in front of women. You've also been conditioned and continue to be mentally conditioned in far more subtle ways. Mental conditioning takes place every day in a myriad of ways that don't involve religion.

As for your claim that as a strong-willed free thinker you're not affected, I'm reminded that con artists are, themselves, very easy to con.

I don't think Vallee's Control System is religion although religions may have been a result of it and new religions may develop as a result of it.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
when something is pushed in our face, seemingly popular but more realistically publicised, that is when we should be looking at what the other hand is doing. This applies to the UFO phenomenon as much as it applies to the demonising of the church to negate it's influence. We are, as a species, incredibly easily distracted by all that glitters and it is essential that we understand that about ourselves. Playing the blame game is too easy, we all do it from time to time. If something is getting lots of coverage, if something seems too neat and convenient, we should be questioning it at every turn.

That is part of how we 'see' the control system, I think; like the archetype of looking in your shield to see the reflection of Medusa because you cannot look at her directly; look at what 'makes sense' and 'is popular' and especially 'is a clear reaction-against elements of power in our culture' -- and those are likely the 'marketed memes' that someone wants us to believe; whatever is really going on, is likely in the other hand. And, given our ignorance of the underlying elements, probably would not seem to make nearly as much sense to us.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
I am kind of spoilt for choice here and really not sure where to dive in. Decisions, decisions

Atheism is no less of a belief system than any other, and is becoming even more so, particularly in the US.

Your comment indicates that you do not know what atheism is. It is not a belief system because it doesn't depend on mental conditioning. We don't have to prove that religion is divine since it is human created. Hence the variety of gods from Roman to Incan which are no longer a part of society. Atheism is the lack of belief. When you are an atheist you are totally free 'cause you are not any religion's slave and fear a myth.

It has a reactionary element to it, a rejection of the status quo and as such, it has far more in common with the early origins of Christianity which was, and perhaps should still be, a stand against oppression and an acceptance of persecution, of marytrdom as a means by which to most clearly demonstrate the evils inherent in organised, 'civilised' life. Atheism has in turn become as reactive to the oppressive nature of fundamentalist religion.

I disagree strongly that atheism is our 'natural state'. A child, without any prompting, believes without question and is naturally fearful of anything that falls outside of it's prior experience. How those fears are dealt with will shape it's perception of the world in future, but inherently, the child fears the unknown and the unseen. If we take that point as the basis of beliefs how they are structured into our sense of self and belonging, then we can perhaps appreciate that atheism is merely a restructuring of the way in which that primal fear is dealt with.

Whether you want to accept it or not we are all born atheists or free of beliefs. When something is drummed into your head when you are an impressionable child it takes hold of your mind just as a hypnotic command does.

In today's world, with all our scientific and technological advances, much can be explained to our children without further enhancing their fear of the unseen. We are no longer forced to resort to stories and parables in order to explain how most of nature works, for example. Both the religious and the atheist can explain what thunder is in actuality, instead of attributing it to a god who dwells in the mountains using his hammer to bring forth rain, and that the reason people die is because of viral pathogens and bacterial infections, and not because of evil spirits carried in the summer winds. Science and technology therefore have undone the need for superstitions. This is an excellent development because it does away with the need to blame, it does away with the need to sacrifice and atone for what we perceived to be our role in bringing disease and pestilence upon ourselves by incurring the wrath of the gods. It is progress.

Beyond our own biosphere however, much is based within the realm of theorem. There may have been a Big Bang, which may have begun the process of expansion that led to the creation of this universe. What initiated that Big Bang is very much a dark area. The atheist, therefore, believes that science will eventually offer an explanation, while the religious believe that the explanation is God. At this stage, each viewpoint is equally valid.

The 'spiritual', on the other hand, don't honestly care either way. It is largely an irrelevancy. What the spiritual believe is that through refinement of the inner world or self, the outer world is given it's form. And it is this that is the basis, and origin, of all religions and is an extension of shamanic belief systems. Such spirit based religions have throughout history become corrupted as a result of the problems of administration of those beliefs and a mistaken need to homogenise. As well as, but as importantly...or perhaps even more importantly...a desire to rush things.

A lot of words which amount to a hill of beans.

originally posted by: Tangerine
snip
I agree that organized religion has caused huge problems, however mental conditioning exists in many forms and is not limited to religion. Your parents probably conditioned you to not gallop around the house naked in front of visitors and to not eat the dog's food. Later, you were conditioned to wait your turn in line and to file your taxes and to be wary when you see someone walking toward you in a dark alley. Hopefully, you've been conditioned to not fart and spit, at least in front of women. You've also been conditioned and continue to be mentally conditioned in far more subtle ways. Mental conditioning takes place every day in a myriad of ways that don't involve religion.

Yes, but those instances that you mention have nothing to do with beliefs because you can opt out of all them. You don't have to wait in line, you can leave and come back when the line is shorter or no line. You have the choice. You don't have to file your taxes. I didn't for many years and no one came after me. You have the choice. You don't have to walk in a dark alley. You have choices. But when it comes to religion, you've been conditioned to accept mythology as real and to develop fears which have no basis. You have no choices because you wouldn't dare go against what has a hold of your logical mind.

As for your claim that as a strong-willed free thinker you're not affected, I'm reminded that con artists are, themselves, very easy to con.

Tangerine, meet uggielicious, not a con artist but the exception. Nothing affects me. I'm 100% conscious and in full control. My bull# alarm is always armed.

I don't think Vallee's Control System is religion although religions may have been a result of it and new religions may develop as a result of it.

No, it's not religion but his ideas are aimed at the believers to be able to accept what he's laying down.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Atheism is the position that there is no God. As such, it is a belief and, in some cases, may even be a belief system but it is not, as Red Cairo argued, religion. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. To argue that atheism is a religion would suggest that holding the position that unicorns do not exist is a religion or believing that Bigfoot exists is a religion or following sports on a regular basis is a religion.

Let’s see...

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

en.wikipedia.org...

Religion is not the same as theism. Religion is merely the means by which society, any society is structured, the norms and values. By that definition, atheism is a ‘world view’. It is the opposing position to theism, not religion. Republicanism and democracy are by that definition a religion.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Obviously, atheism is a reaction against something. It's a position taken as a reaction against the position that there is a God. Atheism isn't the natural state of a newborn child because a child isn't born knowing that some people hold the position that God exists. If agnosticism may be defined as either holding the position that one is uncertain whether or not there is a God or holding no position about the existence of God then agnosticism of the latter type is the natural state of a newborn child.


I don't think that newborns have an innate fear of anything other than falling. Older children do not always believe without questioning. How many times do parents, despite their best efforts, fail to convince children that something new (clowns, for example) won't hurt them?

Newborns do not have an innate fear of falling. They have no concept of falling. Just as they have no concept of God or gods. The birth process is incredibly traumatic for both child and mother. The child is taken from a point of suspension in a warm, fluid environment, then forced through a series of twists and turns to suddenly find themselves isolate. Feelings and sensations assail the newborn and it screams. It is then, ideally, immediately placed against the skin of it’s mother and reconnected with it’s one known constant, the heartbeat. In the first few days and weeks, that ‘other’ is it’s only source of life giving. Without that, or some surrogate supplemental, the newborn would die.

Fear is an emotion induced by a threat perceived by living entities, which causes a change in brain and organ function and ultimately a change in behavior, such as running away, hiding or freezing from traumatic events. Fear may occur in response to a specific stimulus happening in the present, or to a future situation, which is perceived as risk to health or life, status, power, security, or in the case of humans wealth or anything held valuable. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis.

In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning. Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate. An irrational fear is called a phobia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fear is the primary defence mechanism.

originally posted by: Tangerine
I'm not sure your beliefs about atheists hold water. Atheists do not all believe that science holds the answers to (fill in the blank). The only thing that can be said about atheists is that they have taken the position that there is no God. You seem to want to attribute to them a belief system that they don't all share.


The same is true about those you categorize as spiritual. You say that the spiritual don't care one way or another whether God or science holds the answers to (fill in the blank). I don't know how you've reached the conclusion that they don't care. Some may not but some do care. I also don't understand how you decided that spiritual people believe that refinement of the self gives the outer world its form. Some may certainly believe that but not all. I know people who describe themselves as spiritual who hold a wide variety of beliefs.

You've made some sweeping and, I would argue, incorrect generalizations about groups of people. Among these generalizations is the notion that early religions were based on fear. Many (maybe all) early pagans regarded everything as living and having "spirit". How one should interact with those animate beings might have been a significant force in developing early religions. Fear probably did play some role, but not the major role as it did with the formation of monotheistic religions.

Yes, that is exactly what I was doing, generalising. I was putting all three viewpoints into neat and tidy boxes, and it doesn’t work does it? The key point is that our ultimate creation is an unknown, that is something that we should all be able to agree on. We should also be able to realise that whatever the purpose or non-purpose of our existence, it is entirely in our own hands, not subject to the will of external forces. The question though, is why can’t we agree on that? Why the need to box everyone up and emphasise difference when we have so much in common?

originally posted by: Tangerine
Could you be speaking from the viewpoint of a Judeo-Christian monotheist who sees everyone else's beliefs/belief systems through the eyes of monotheism?

I was born and raised in the UK, of course I come from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. That’s a given. Those are the laws that have shaped the norms and values of every Western culture that exists today, including the Islamic states and those current and former colonies that came under the jurisdiction of those cultures. Even in countries as secular as those that form the power house of the European Union, Judeo-Christianity is the central foundation of our laws and as such, morality.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I think you just answered your own question yourself, kinda like an oxymoron.

Yes, that is exactly what I was doing, generalising. I was putting all three viewpoints into neat and tidy boxes, and it doesn’t work does it? The key point is that our ultimate creation is an unknown, that is something that we should all be able to agree on. We should also be able to realise that whatever the purpose or non-purpose of our existence, it is entirely in our own hands, not subject to the will of external forces. The question though, is why can’t we agree on that? Why the need to box everyone up and emphasise difference when we have so much in common?

If our existence is entirely in our hands than our reality extends to what we perceive. If we perceive differently than our realities are different. What I always ponder about, do these differences in perceived reality manifest creation?

originally posted by: RedCairo
That is part of how we 'see' the control system, I think; like the archetype of looking in your shield to see the reflection of Medusa because you cannot look at her directly; look at what 'makes sense' and 'is popular' and especially 'is a clear reaction-against elements of power in our culture' -- and those are likely the 'marketed memes' that someone wants us to believe; whatever is really going on, is likely in the other hand. And, given our ignorance of the underlying elements, probably would not seem to make nearly as much sense to us.

There is a quote about the different types of magic from the preface of the Arbatel de Magia Veterum which I really like.

"The third kind of Magick containeth the whole Philosophy of Nature; which bringeth to light the innermost virtues, and extracteth them out of Nature's hidden bosome to humane use: Virtutes in centro centri latentes; Virtues hidden in the centre of the Centre, according to the Chymists: of this sort were Albertus, Arnoldus de villa nova, Raymond Lull, Bacon and others, &c.

The Magick these men profess'd, is thus defined: Magick is the connexion of natural agents and patients, answerable each to other, wrought by a wise man, to the bringing forth of such effects as are wonderful to those that know not their causes."

home.earthlink.net...

A big problem these days is a lack of actual book reading. There is so much information available on the internet. Free. Concisely presented. That is good, but it is or should only be, supplemental, an introduction or taster to further study. There is no short cut. I can't just blame the internet though, the problem is as old as civilisation. That is the very nature of the Mystery religions, short cuts and as I am sure you know, it is the journey that is of greatest import, the destination is meaningless without it.

The Mysteries take you straight to the destination, initiating the 'faithful' into the 'control system', and in doing so, they render The Mystery bereft of meaning. That is why it is a pantomime. Everyone is merely going through the motions accepting meaningless metaphors rather than the actuality of magic.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
If our existence is entirely in our hands than our reality extends to what we perceive. If we perceive differently than our realities are different. What I always ponder about, do these differences in perceived reality manifest creation?

Uh huh...maybe...that I don't know

But...

There is a song that I like very much, it is not about me so much as it is about the relationship I have with Jesus, if you can call it a relationship as such. The song is a tool I use, a reminder of sorts...me at my rawest, my most naked self that I can only be because of him.



The boy/man aspect expressed in the words is important if you know your mysticism, but, my real journey began with the phrase "Talitha Kumi", roughly translated, "Woman, Get up!"

Not much help, I am sure, in answering your questions, it may though explain the contradictory nature of my statements and my inability to answer. It's that juxtaposition of knowing in a state of unknowing.

interesting:

The Nag Hammadi material contains reports of visionary experiences of the initiates, including first-hand encounters with inorganic beings called Archons. Gnostic teaching explains that these entities arose in the early stage of formation of the solar system, before the Earth was formed. Archons inhabit the solar system, the extraterrestrial realm as such, but they can intrude on Earth. Interestingly, this Gnostic insight accords closely with the view of Jacques Vallee, who maintains that ET/cyborgs probably belong to the local planetary realm. Vallee also proposes that the ET/UFO enigma is a “spiritual control system,” a phenomenon that “behaves like a conditioning process.” (Messengers of Deception). This is exactly what Gnostics said about the Archons: they can affect our minds by subliminal conditioning techniques. Their main tactics are mental error (intellectual virus, or false ideology, especially religious doctrines) and simulation. Archons are predatory, unlike a wide range of non-human and other-dimensional beings also known to the Gnostics, beings who are benevolent or neutral toward humanity.

and...

they wrote that this invasion was like a virus and, in fact, they were hard pressed to describe it. The beings that were invading were called Archons. These Archons had the ability to duplicate reality, to fool us. They were jealous of us because we have an essence of some kind, a soul, that they don’t possess, and the Nag Hammadi texts describe the Archons. One looks like a reptile and the other looks like an unformed baby or a foetus. It is partially living and partially non-living and has grey skin and dark, unmoving eyes. The Archons are duplicating reality so that when we buy into it, when we come to believe that the duplicated, false state reality is the real reality - then they become the victors.

www.metahistory.org...

www.jayweidner.com...

www.earlychristianwritings.com...



.

Interesting videos to watch:

www.youtube.com...

.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout


I was born and raised in the UK, of course I come from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. That’s a given. Those are the laws that have shaped the norms and values of every Western culture that exists today, including the Islamic states and those current and former colonies that came under the jurisdiction of those cultures. Even in countries as secular as those that form the power house of the European Union, Judeo-Christianity is the central foundation of our laws and as such, morality.

May I suggest that you start a thread about religion (defined as you wish)? Most of us are capable of tossing in a few afterthoughts linking religion/atheism to the thread topic, but it's clear that some people really want to discuss religion instead of the thread topic.

a reply to: Tangerine

Of course you can suggest that, I believe you just have, and I, in turn am free to ignore your suggestion.

May I suggest that you simply contribute what it is you actually do want to discuss and in doing so steer the conversation into areas that you feel more comfortable with. There is no obligation, on your part, to respond to topics or posts that are of no interest to you, and, just because those topics don't interest you doesn't mean that others do not feel they have some bearing on the topic or the on going discussion.

originally posted by: washere
The Nag Hammadi material contains reports of visionary experiences of the initiates, including first-hand encounters with inorganic beings called Archons. Gnostic teaching explains that these entities arose in the early stage of formation of the solar system, before the Earth was formed. Archons inhabit the solar system, the extraterrestrial realm as such, but they can intrude on Earth. Interestingly, this Gnostic insight accords closely with the view of Jacques Vallee, who maintains that ET/cyborgs probably belong to the local planetary realm. Vallee also proposes that the ET/UFO enigma is a “spiritual control system,” a phenomenon that “behaves like a conditioning process.” (Messengers of Deception). This is exactly what Gnostics said about the Archons: they can affect our minds by subliminal conditioning techniques. Their main tactics are mental error (intellectual virus, or false ideology, especially religious doctrines) and simulation. Archons are predatory, unlike a wide range of non-human and other-dimensional beings also known to the Gnostics, beings who are benevolent or neutral toward humanity.

There is this whole thing with the gnostics, that was pointed out to me by other members here on ATS, on this question of exclusivity. The whole listener and elect thingy-ma-jig. It goes back, at least, to the Orphic Mystery school, where they create this whole 'it's a secret'. In this way, as has been previously discussed in this thread, they structure the perceptions of the initiate and direct what they see should they have any form of 'visionary' experience. Throughout literate history you get this smack-down of anyone who deviates from the acceptable vision experience and a reshaping of that experience towards conformity. What becomes clear is that there is no 'secret', the capability to 'see' is within everyone (in principle) but the pre-conditioning of the individual will create a reaction, mentally, that rationalises and gives shape to the experience through stored memories. It will also, if you are led to believe such an experience is 'demonic' create a release of chemicals to inspire fear, or alternatively, euphoria, which will further impact on the outcome, interpretation or extrapolation of the experience. It is the erroneous aspect of any of it being a 'secret' or 'forbidden' that is the most damaging to disentangling any meaning and which take us back to what was raised by Bybyots, I think a page or two back, about this whole nonsense about 'specialness' that the gnostic sects were particularly inclined towards and somewhat propagated. That and equally, the need to have anyone interpret the information for you.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Tangerine

Of course you can suggest that, I believe you just have, and I, in turn am free to ignore your suggestion.

May I suggest that you simply contribute what it is you actually do want to discuss and in doing so steer the conversation into areas that you feel more comfortable with. There is no obligation, on your part, to respond to topics or posts that are of no interest to you, and, just because those topics don't interest you doesn't mean that others do not feel they have some bearing on the topic or the on going discussion.

I have been guilty of responding to posts about religion that have little or nothing to do with the thread topic. That does not justify you, I or anyone else from continuing to go off topic. It's not my responsibility to steer you on topic.

originally posted by: Tangerine
I have been guilty of responding to posts about religion that have little or nothing to do with the thread topic. That does not justify you, I or anyone else from continuing to go off topic. It's not my responsibility to steer you on topic.

Whether it is on or off-topic is a matter of opinion, and please feel free to hit alert and speak with a mod if it concerns you overly. You seem to be the only one who is perturbed by this, there have been meanders throughout the many pages of the thread, with all those participating hopping in and out as it suits. You seem to have a burr up your ass about religion being included in the discussion, that's your problems. And I can assure you that I wasn't suggesting that you steer me any where, perish the thought, what I was suggesting was that you raise whatever it is you want to talk about and then talk about it. If you contribute anything that interests me I may respond, otherwise I will leave you, and whoever joins you, to get on with it.

I am perfectly happy that I am on topic whether you are able to comprehend that is moot.

a reply to: Tangerine

Well said. Thank you. The interesting thread topic & discussion & references are being destroyed by chaotic rambling. Best way is not to respond.

Jacques Vallee:

Psychic Technologies

We already have human technologies that are both physical and
"psychic" (in the sense of influencing the consciousness of an
observer). An example of such a technology is given, very simply,
by your television set. There is no question that it is physical. You
can talk about its size, volume, weight, and temperature. But if
you turn it on, it will begin to control your awareness in peculiar
ways. You will observe scenes that, as far as you can tell, could
be either "real" or faked. You may be a witness to an actual crime
committed right now, or to something that happened years ago.

You may also believe a scene to be absolutely real, when in fact it
is actually staged i n a studio i n Hollywood. Based o n what you
can observe, you have no way to know the truth, even if you have
a Nobel prize in physics. Besides, your television set influences
you in other ways. It determines what toothpaste you use, how
you shave, who you go to bed with, and how you will vote in the
next election.

In some respects I think UFOs are similar to television sets.
They are physical objects, the products of a technology, bur they are
also something else: the tools of a major cultural change. I think
UFOs are perpetrating a deception by presenting their so-called
"occupants" as being messengers from outer space, and I suspect
there are groups of people on Earth exploiting this deception.
I have written this book because I am concerned with the
changes which would be triggered by the belief in an outer-space
invasion, real or simulated. In the words of a Brookings Institute
report on the cultural impact of extraterrestrial life:

"The consequences of such a discovery are presently
unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of
behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic
circumstances. The fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects
are growing apace . . . For them, the discovery of other life
would be electrifYing."


Genuine "contactees" like Helen are already busy preparing these
changes. They mean business. They are sincere. They obey what
they believe to be orders coming from a higher cosmic level.
Most scientists think this is a delusion of no importance. I differ
from them in believing that these contactees are being used in a
dangerous way, and that the symbolism they propagate will make a
deep impact on our lives.

The new belief is completely lacking in logic. That is the key
to its power. It serves to keep scientists away. The more absurd the
statement, the stronger its effect. When the Establishment is rational,
absurdity is dynamite. Through the contactees, the Manipulators
are undermining both religion and science.

Contact with alien intelligence is a social issue, too. Yesterday
any politician would have avoided UFOs like the plague. Today
men like Jimmy Carter proclaim that they have seen unidentified
lights in the sky and are "no longer laughing at those who report
flying saucers."

Various "revelations" by former government employees have
suggested that evidence of extraterrestrial visitors
may exist in Washington. Even a man like Arthur Lundahl, former
director of the Photographic Interpretation Center of the CIA, has
stated publicly that he had examined a number of UFO films for
the government and had judged them to be authentic.

Tomorrow someone might announce that proof has been found for the
existence of alien life forms. Such an announcement would make
possible astonishing social, political, and economic changes. To
pave the way for such changes is the stated goal of many contactees.
Their purpose is Utopia today. It could be reality tomorrow.


- Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults, pp. 68-69

originally posted by: washere


Jacques Vallee:

Psychic Technologies

We already have human technologies that are both physical and
"psychic" (in the sense of influencing the consciousness of an
observer). An example of such a technology is given, very simply,
by your television set. There is no question that it is physical. You
can talk about its size, volume, weight, and temperature. But if
you turn it on, it will begin to control your awareness in peculiar
ways. You will observe scenes that, as far as you can tell, could
be either "real" or faked. You may be a witness to an actual crime
committed right now, or to something that happened years ago.

You may also believe a scene to be absolutely real, when in fact it
is actually staged i n a studio i n Hollywood. Based o n what you
can observe, you have no way to know the truth, even if you have
a Nobel prize in physics. Besides, your television set influences
you in other ways. It determines what toothpaste you use, how
you shave, who you go to bed with, and how you will vote in the
next election.

In some respects I think UFOs are similar to television sets.
They are physical objects, the products of a technology, bur they are
also something else: the tools of a major cultural change. I think
UFOs are perpetrating a deception by presenting their so-called
"occupants" as being messengers from outer space, and I suspect
there are groups of people on Earth exploiting this deception.
I have written this book because I am concerned with the
changes which would be triggered by the belief in an outer-space
invasion, real or simulated. In the words of a Brookings Institute
report on the cultural impact of extraterrestrial life:

"The consequences of such a discovery are presently
unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of
behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic
circumstances. The fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects
are growing apace . . . For them, the discovery of other life
would be electrifYing."


Genuine "contactees" like Helen are already busy preparing these
changes. They mean business. They are sincere. They obey what
they believe to be orders coming from a higher cosmic level.
Most scientists think this is a delusion of no importance. I differ
from them in believing that these contactees are being used in a
dangerous way, and that the symbolism they propagate will make a
deep impact on our lives.

The new belief is completely lacking in logic. That is the key
to its power. It serves to keep scientists away. The more absurd the
statement, the stronger its effect. When the Establishment is rational,
absurdity is dynamite. Through the contactees, the Manipulators
are undermining both religion and science.

Contact with alien intelligence is a social issue, too. Yesterday
any politician would have avoided UFOs like the plague. Today
men like Jimmy Carter proclaim that they have seen unidentified
lights in the sky and are "no longer laughing at those who report
flying saucers."

Various "revelations" by former government employees have
suggested that evidence of extraterrestrial visitors
may exist in Washington. Even a man like Arthur Lundahl, former
director of the Photographic Interpretation Center of the CIA, has
stated publicly that he had examined a number of UFO films for
the government and had judged them to be authentic.

Tomorrow someone might announce that proof has been found for the
existence of alien life forms. Such an announcement would make
possible astonishing social, political, and economic changes. To
pave the way for such changes is the stated goal of many contactees.
Their purpose is Utopia today. It could be reality tomorrow.


- Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults, pp. 68-69

Vallee is a rambler and when he gives his interpretation of his mental constructions he leaves out free will to make decisions that counter his assertions. Television programming doesn't affect me the way he posits. I watch it for entertainment knowing full well that what I'm seeing is not always what it is. I'm not affected by ads in a controlling sort of way as he wants us to think it is. Besides, some commercials feature products that one would enjoy and benefit from. Last year I bought an aero knife after watching the tv commercial. My wife still raves about it! And we get toothpaste free from our dentist twice a year.

Vallee: "I think UFOs are perpetrating a deception by presenting their so-called "occupants" as being messengers from outer space, and I suspect there are groups of people on Earth exploiting this deception."

That kind of thinking will earn you a Section 8 discharge! What kind of evidence, for heaven's sake, could Vallee produce to support his thinking? How does he arrive at the reality to state with some certainty at "...messengers from outer space..."?

No doubt Vallee isn't your average UFOlogy author, he is a better thinker than Friedman et al, but in my opinion he doesn't provide anything more than possibilities which may be nowhere near the realities that could eventually be discovered if we were to be communicated with by a non-present-day earthling(s), simultaneously across the globe with whatever they feel is most important. That's when adult diaper stock value will jump through the roof!

It's absurd to say one has watched TV for a lifetime and has not been affected in any way shape or form by it, imho.

I agree Vallee is unique. I'm taking his recent suggestions and more exciting his questions to himself, some contradictory as he tests various hypotheses, to draw possible untested conclusions. Which are virgin territory and simply astounding yet perfectly logical. He is thinking deeper than anyone but is missing certain possible rational yet fascinating scenarios of purpose behind these phenomena. I think he should be re-read carefully, specially by himself! The control system has huge potential yet and is still an unknown country.

Now, thirty odd years earlier Vallee was saying similar things:

The Control System

The Level of Control

Like the Stranger in The King in Yellow the UFO wears no
mask. It is exactly what we see, but to understand it we
must face it squarely.

My assumption is that a level of control of society exists
which is a regulator of man's development. I am also led to
the assumption that the action of UFOs operates at this
level. What does this explain? First it explains why there is
no contact. Direct genuine contact would ruin the experiment.
(There may be deliberately misleading contact, as in
UMMO.) It would preclude genuine learning.

It explains some of the statements made by ufonauts
('you should believe in us but not too much'), and the Schirmer
case, with its deliberate confusion: 'you will not speak wisely
about this night'. It explains the absurdity of many cases, where
reactions to the phenomenon may have been evoked in
terms of nonverbal consciousness rather than in 'logical'
terms. This would explain why so many witnesses are incapable
of finding words to describe what they have seen.

When I speak of a control system for planet earth I do
not want my words to be misunderstood: I do not mean
that some higher order of beings has locked us inside the
constraints of a space-bound jail, closely monitored by psychic
entities we might call angels or demons. I do not propose
to redefine God. What I do mean is that mythology
rules at a level of our social reality over which normal
political and intellectual action has no real power.

At that level, time frames are long, of the order of a century,
and evolution is slow and sure. Mass media, which are designed
to give split-second images of transient noise (the noisier
the better), miss this signal entirely. A society with an attention
span of ten minutes (the interval between two TV commercials)
can have no concept of events that have begun
when my grandfather was not yet born and will end after
my grandson dies.

But there are such long-term changes and
they may be. deliberate. They dominate the destiny of civilizations.
Myths define the set of things scholars, politicians,
and scientists can think about. They are operated upon by
symbols, and the language these symbols form constitutes a
complete system. This system is metalogical, but not metaphysical.
It violates no laws· because it is the substance of
which laws are made.


The theory does not explain how UFOs are made to
appear to us although it gives support to one idea about
them: that they are constructed both as physical craft (a fact
which has long appeared to me undeniable) and as psychic
devices, whose exact properties remain to be defined. As a
focus for psychic phenomena, the UFO evokes a deep
emotional reaction in the viewer, but logical development of
an investigation is prevented - or precluded - by the apparent
violations of causality that surround it and by the sociological
climate that is created.

Scientists may be willing to interview a witness who has seen
a landed craft, but he may not wish to talk to them. Or
the witness may offer as 'proof' of his experience a couple
of pancakes given to him by extraterrestrials, a
recitation of meaningless messages, or a story of
sexual contact with a girl from outer space. In any
case, a pursuit of the rational study of the case is impossible.
The lurid aspects of many such stories make their serious
examination improbable, and this in turn reinforces the
role of the UFO rumors as folklore, rich in new images.


The Next Form of Religion

In the course of ten years of investigation into paranormal
phenomena one hears many stories. In the past, I have only
published those stories I could authenticate or that I feel
meet basic criteria of reliability. Beyond these cases, however,
I have been exposed to a certain number of consistent
rumors which do play a role in the unfolding of the total
myth. They involved stories of contact between humans and
alleged visitors residing on earth. Some of the descriptions
are extremely detailed and have involved scientists as witnesses.


Some of the humans associated with the cases are
said to have eventually disappeared. There is a spectrum of
experience that runs from abduction or contact (conscious
or not), to the close-encounter, to the exposure to humanoids,
and, finally, to the reports of aliens among us. I have
spent hours with Betty and Barney Hill and have had a
chance to discuss the case of their abduction with Dr Simon.
I have also become acquainted with the stories of people
who exhibited paranormal faculties and claimed to derive
them from sources in outer space.


What interests me is not the likelihood of such a contact •
(how could we prove it?) but the fact that a subculture now
exists in every country, based on the idea that humanity has
a higher destiny. You will find people in remote towns of
California who have literally dropped out of city life (where
they had held responsible positions and enjoyed good
salaries) because they had received messages from space instructing
them to do so. These people are not hippies,
although similar experiences have been frequent also among
younger commune members. The people I am referring to
are middle-aged, have families and steady jobs. They would·

be regarded as perfectly square if it were not for the fact
that their lives have been changed by what they consider to
be genuine extraterrestrial communication. They wait. And,
a curious fact in the current state of the world, they seem
perfectly happy. We could categorize them among the victims
of city pressures who have sought the psychological
comfort of small-town life. But we might also wonder
whether they are not the forerunners of a new spiritual
movement.

One such man left Los Angeles with his family· after a
message he believes came from Jupiter instructed him to
find an isolated spot and live in semi-retirement, 'providing
a center of peace in the world of intense turmoil that was to
come'. He now lives with his wife in a small mountain
village, has no television set, reads avidly, and awaits further
instructions. He is one of the happiest old people I have met
in the United States. We are not here dealing with escapism
-we are dealing with the next form of religion.

excerpt continued in next post.

.

Vallee excerpt continued:

Why bring all this into the open 'l Because flying saucers,
real or not as objects, clearly introduce a central element in
an already troubled future landscape. It would be overly
optimistic to predict that they will decrease its dangers. It
is nonetheless interesting to ask what will happen to our
civilization if the next step in the development of the
phenomenon is a massive change of human attitudes toward
paranormal abilities and extraterrestrial life. While
many conservative scientists still refuse even to consider
the data, and while many gullible people have already
jumped to blind belief in some occult mumbo-jumbo, it
seems important to me that an increasing number of scientists
.continue to promote the exploration of new concepts
by seriously studying the phenomena.

A great celebration, in San Francisco. A thousand young
people, the nucleus of everything psychic and countercultural
in Northern California, have gathered in a large
auditorium. There are booths selling health food, cosmic
advice, tantric yoga courses, and consciousness training. A
colorful crowd pulsates through the aisles and fills the
seminar rooms. The One World Family Commune of
Berkeley runs a restaurant. It is directed by Allan the Messiah,
wearing an impeccable red uniform and advertising
the Everlasting Gospel revealed to him by the saucers. His
information indicates that the earth is in fact hollow, with
the saucer people inside.

'Do you really believe that?' asks a friend of mine.
'Certainly,' he replies. 'If you were going to make a
planet, would you waste all that good dirt?'
I find myself on a panel with Andrija Puharich, Arthur
Young, mathematician Charles Muses (Young and Muses
are the two authors of an excellent book called Consciousness
and Reality) and a scientist, Tom Bearden. The panel
is chaired by Ira Einhorn, a poet from Philadelphia. Puharich
describes his latest experiences with Geller.

He explains to the audience that he gets messages on his tape
recorder, coming from a mysterious cosmic source. But the tape
vanishes regularly. There is nothing he can do to prevent it,
and he is totally committed to the idea that he and Uri are
now guided by a very high source of wisdom, and that the
only course for mankind is to place its destiny in· 'their'
hands.

Ira gives the floor to Charles Muses who comments on
Geller. Humanity, he says, stands on the brink of catastrophe,
at the edge of a chasm. How are we to reach the safe
side? A flying saucer hovers above the chasm, our only
hope: 'Do you want a lift?' asks the UFO.
Salvation from heaven. Shouldn't we know something
more about the helpful stranger before we jump on board?
Shouldn't we make sure that the chasm is real, and that we
cannot bridge it with our own resources? Cannot we reach
the other side by our own means?

When we are asked to suspend all our rational thoughts,
to forget our 'obsolete' critical faculties, to throw control
overboard, then the time has come to take all the data and
go away with it to a quiet place to think. My guess is that
the problem will not be seriously studied by many scientists
until it has begun to generate a very high degree of
public awareness, and then the approach will be an entirely
classical one: millions of dollars to consultants and research
institutes, thousands of questionnaires, field investigators
with glass bottles, sociologists filling correlation matrices,
medical personnel adjusting electrodes over the frontal lobes
of ranchers. But this will only be, in my opinion, another
wrinkle in the learning curve, another step in the conditioning.

There is a strange urge in my mind: I would like to stop
behaving as a rat pressing levers - even if I have to go
hungry for a while. I would like to step outside the conditioning
maze and see what makes it tick. I wonder what I
would find. Perhaps a terrible superhuman monstrosity the
very contemplation of which would make a man insane?
Perhaps a solemn gathering of wise men? Or the maddening
simplicity of unattended clockwork?

- Dr Jacques Vallee, UFOs: The Psychic Solution, 1977 pp. 205-209

.