SUBJECT: CSETI FILE: UFO3243 PART 7 THE CASE FOR NON HOSTILITY: ACTIONS DO NOT EQUAL MOTIVES Copyright 1991 - Steven M. Greer, M.D. On a beautiful fall day in 1990, an 11 year old boy was gliding with abandon down a rural North Carolina road. The exhilaration of the moment quickly turned to horror when a car sped over the crest of a hill and smashed directly into the child, crushing his chest and abdomen, but miraculously sparing any serious injuries to his head. Paramedics were rushed to the scene and quickly transported the child to an Emergency Department trauma room. There, the child entered a foreign world of stainless steel, white walls and strange overhead equipment. What followed next was destined to frighten the still-alert child perhaps more than the accident itself: His blood pressure was falling and the staff had only minutes to establish intravenous lifelines and decompress a life threatening chest injury which is often rapidly fatal. There was no time for general anesthesia, and in order to survive, the hapless victim had to endure emergency procedures while awake. Despite calm assurances and explanations that the staff meant only well, the child was understandably terrified as needles probed him and a chest tube was put through his chest wall and into the chest cavity. The child protested violently, scared and quite convinced that the staff really meant him only harm, pain and further suffering. To the child, they were demons bent on tormenting him; their actions seemed incomprehensible, harsh and even tortuous. But, of course, his perceptions of their actions were the direct opposite of their true intentions, since the staff had only his ultimate welfare and survival in mind. From this child's level of understanding and awareness, their actions - and therefore the medical staff as people - were evil and malevolent, but in truth in their hearts and minds, they were motivated only by compassion, the sanctity and preservation of life, the alleviation of suffering, the healing of trauma and disease... This story illustrates a point about many commonly held assumptions regarding the motives and ultimate intentions of the extraterrestial beings presently visiting earth. That is, we must avoid the assumption of negative motives based on the reported actions of ETI. Our perception of an action must not be confused with the actual motives of the beings performing the actions, since it is quite possible that frightening or negatively perceived actions are derived from genuinely good motives. Unfortunately, the UFO/ETI literature is filled with the 'conventional wisdom' that many aspects of the phenomenon represent sinister actions driven by equally sinister motives. There is a facile tendency to conclude, either directly or by inference, that many reported actions are indicative of 'malintent'. A careful reading of many if not most, 1980's books on UFOs and 'abductions' reveals an alarming tendency to jump to sinister conclusions. Even the language used to describe these events is emotionally charged and shows a propensity towards assumed ETI hostility and malevolence. Reports of actions are taken as evidence of hostility or evil motives without a careful analysis of the possible neutral or positive motives which may account for the events. As will be shown, such conclusions are both unwarranted and frought with danger, since they color our thinking and emotions with unjustified fear, paranoia, and negativity, and in turn will negatively affect the future ETI/Human relationship. We must be careful that our assumption of false hostility does not create a future of actual hostility. The reasons for reaching these negative conclusions are probably multiple. Some events, on the face of them, appear disturbing to human sensibilities, and like the child in the car accident, lend themselves to quick assumptions of hostility. The entire topic of technologically advanced extraterrestials visiting earth may play to innate human insecurities and fears of domination or loss of control. The tendency of humans to think in linear and dualistic terms of black/white, good/bad, etc. certainly contributes. A psychological tendency to dwell on or be attracted to spectacularly negative things or events, such as monsters, wars, murder stories, ghost stories and such like may provide an impetus to reaching conclusions of ETI hostility (more people go to see a movie like "Friday the Thirteenth" than, say "Ghandi"). And, unfortunately, sensationalized concepts of vile aliens invading hapless humans sells books, movies, and television programs. To be specific, let us take the most disturbing and sensational reports of ETI involvement with human reproductive events. The story of a female being taken aboard a craft and subjected to abdominal or vaginal needle probes to remove ova has been extensively studied in the past decade. While we do not definitely know this, let us assume that the ETI are taking ova (and sperm) and are preserving them, or are using them to develop test tube babies, or even ETI/ Human hybrids. As disturbing as such events may sound, could there be 'ultimate intentions' which are non-hostile? What if the ETI, alarmed by wild nuclear proliferation and/or massive ecosystem damage, perceive a high probability of a human or geological cataclysm in the near future? Could they be motivated by a desire to safeguard and preserve human and other earth life in the event of a worse-case scenario? If the hundreds of reports of ETI paranormal mental abilities are to be accepted, perhaps they have 'seen' a probable future of massive earth changes, and these actions are viewed by them as a well-intentioned rescue attempt. While human ethics might be offended by this, perhaps Zacharia Sitchin's assertion that ETI genetically intervened several hundren thousand years ago to establish modern homo sapiens is true, and they are now attempting to further advance the human race. While such concepts may shock and offend many humans, they are not motives of hostility or malevolence per se, especially from the ETI perspective. Indeed if ETI view us as a race of beings whose chief activities are warfare, violence and environmental destruction, and who are on the verge of self-annihilation, such motives may be understood as benevolent and altruistic! The point here is that there are actually a number of explanations for even the most disturbing reports of ETI actions which involve non-hostile intentions. It is entirely possible - if not probable - that ETI actions which many humans view as hostile are actually neutral or benevolent, and would be seen as such even by humans if the 'big picture' were appreciated. What follows below is a brief listing of possible ETI motivations which are either neutral or positive: NON-HOSTILE ETI MOTIVATIONS Human-Perceived Positive/ETI Perceived Positive: -Protective Surveillance -Emergency Intervention and 'Rescue' (in the event of manmade or natural cataclysm) -Human War Limitation and COntrol (nuclear) -Documentation and Preservation of Ecosystems -Eventual ETI-Human Knowledge & Technology Transfer (pending world peace, human non-aggression) -Eventual Earth Incorporation into Inter-Planetary Union -Inter-Cultural Exchange and Communication, long term plan Human Perceived Neutral/ ETI Perceived Positive: -Observation -Basic Research -Sample and Data Collection Human Perceived Variable (may be positive, Neutral and/or Negative)/ETI Perceived Positive: -Limitation of nuclear contamination of space -Limitation or containment of space exploration pending human evolution to world peace, unity and non-aggression -Protection of non-earth civilizations from human aggression -Human genetic research, preservation and experimentation a. to ensure continuance of human species b. to develop advanced ETI/Human hybrid c. basic research -ETI Security Considerations (e.g. safeguarding of ETI technology, protection of intelligence data base, etc., pending human evolution to non-violence) On balance, UFO/ETI reports provide no overall evidence of ETI hostility. Some disturbing reports exist, but so too do reports of peaceful intentions, kindness, healing, benevolence and so forth. No conclusions regarding ETI intentions can be reached by simply viewing isolated case reports. The polarizing tendency to declare ETI as either sinister intruders or perfect god- like saviors is unwise at best, and probably dangerous to the long term health of the ETI-Human relationship. This does NOT mean, however, that we must view this phenomenon in a 'motive vacuum', and I feel that a strong case for assumed non-hostility can and indeed must be made. This assumption of non-hostility means that in our research, analysis and ETI interactions, we assume non- hostility until clearly proven otherwise. It does not mean that we regard ETI as necessarily god-like saviors, but it clearly avoids the premature characterization of ETI actions and motives as hostile or sinister. Such a moderate positivity and optimism is essential for the emerging ETI/Human relationship to develop with the least chance of conflict. The Case For Non-Hostility, The Case Against Hostility Perhaps as much or more is revealed about ETI intentions by what has not occurred as by what has. UFOs have not attacked humans or fired weaponry unless first threatened or attacked. ETI have not invaded or destroyed any part of earth, nor have they shown any intentions to do so in the future. Notwithstanding superior technology and maneuverability, they have not attempted any domination or aggressive actions over the past decades, if not centuries, of sightings. Such long term restraints belies any ultimately hostile intention. The assumption of hostility is illogical when the entire phenomenon is viewed over time. If ETI have been observing, and to some extent interacting with earth for centuries, why delay a hostile occupation? The rather marked increase in UFO/ETI activities coinciding with the dawn of the human nuclear age in the mid-1940s would indicate a genuine concern for human hostile capabilities. This would indicate that ETI is a) concerned for the long term welfare and survival of humans, or b) concerned about the potential for human nuclear aggression being exported off-earth to extra- terrestial civilizations, or both. Neither of these concerns is indicative of hostility towards humans, but rather a concern fof human hostility. Certain militarists may find such interest in our nuclear capabilities disconcerting, but on balance this does not warrant a conclusion of ETI hostility. On the contrary, it supports the view that ETI motives are non-hostile in nature. If the work of Zacharia Sitchin, Richard Hoagland(Monuments on Mars) and others is to be believed, ETI involvement and observation with humans is an ancient, not recent, phenomenon. If aggression, domination and such like were actually motivating ETI, why wait until a) humans possess weapons of mass destruction, capable of inflicting damage on even ETI craft and personnel, and b) the earth has been significantly damaged and overrun by billions of humans? Certainly, the earth would have been an easier - and more pleasant - catch even 200 years ago. On balance, the 'hostile aliens' theory, while sensational and making great science fiction reading, is illogical and is not supported by the facts of this phenomenon when analyzed comprehensively. The Evolutionary Selection of Non-Aggression in Intelligent Beings A more fundamental and essential basis for assuming non-hostility is the theory of the Evolutionary Selection of Non-Aggression in Intelligent Beings. Briefly put, this theory holds that an intelligent species cannot evolve past a certain technological level without the concimitant and essential development of non-aggression. That is, malevolent aggression is an attribute which ensures the self-destruction of a species if retained past a certain point in technological and cultural evolution. It stands to reason that any intelligent species, such as humans, who operate from a paradigm of malevolent aggression will first turn that aggression on themselves, thus resulting in their 'mutually assured destruction' if retained much past the point of developing nuclear technology. Such aggression would perforce severely incapacitate or destroy intelligent species, thus limiting their ability to persist long enough to develop technologies capable of inter-planetary or interstellar flight. It is, therefore, unlikely that a species would evolve to possess space travel capabilities while maintaining unchecked aggressive and malevolent tendencies. It is more likely that at some point in the evolution of a technological society (perhaps at the advent of nuclear technology) a species is required to transcend their own aggressiveness in order to survive. There is, then, a self-limiting dynamic which protects other planetary systems from aggressive species since the establishment of non-aggression is a requirement for significant and long term technological development. The evolution of the consciousness of non-aggression is an absolute prerequisite for the long term survival of a technologically advanced civilization. It is doubtful, then, that any species - including humans - who fail to embrace peace and non-aggression will survive their own technology, much less make it to another planet or star system. The inner development of consciousness eventually overtakes technology, simply because it must in order for the species to survive or further evolve. The establishment of non-aggression or non-hostility in a species does not mean, however, that such a species would have values, beliefs and behaviors perfectly matched to those of late 20th century earth! On the contrary, since aggression, fighting, war-making and the like are pervasive activities of 20th century man, such values and beliefs may be quite opposite! But we must not confuse varying values and behaviors with hostility towards humans per se. that values and behaviors vary between species who have evolved on different planets is to be expected; however, it must not be cited as proof of extraterrestial hostility, nor allowed to become foci of significant conflict. For this is the same disasterous and well- traveled path which humans have gone down for centuries. Beyond these considerations, the unfortunate and prevalent assumption of ETI hostility is fraught with the high potential for danger and loss. If we assume UFOs/ETI to be hostile, then our thoughts, actions, and plans will reflect this. The important possibilities for peaceful communication and exchange will be poisoned with fear, aggression and suspicion. Instead of viewing ETI as an opportunity for peaceful communication, we will view them as yet another target of human aggression and xenophobic reactionary behavior. Instead of viewing their energy and technological advancements as potential sources of peaceful pregress on earth, we will become obsessed (as perhaps our government has) with capturing their technology to be reverse-engineered into human military applications. We run the very real risk of creating our own negetive reality, all based on premature assumptions of net ETI hostility. It is far safer to take the high road and assume non-hostility, and behave accordingly, until ETI intentions are well-proven to be otherwise. We have much to gain, and strategically and realistically little to lose, by such a stance. We must be careful not to squander so golden an opportunity for communication, exchange and progress as is presently presenting itself to mankind. To assume non-hostility means that our thoughts, attitudes and actions will be peaceful, scientific and receptive without the polluting overlay of fear and paranoia. It will avoid the creation of unnecessary and avoidable conflict and will actually facilitate communication and exchange. It does not mean that we go to the other extreme and regard ETI as god-like saviors, only that we regard then as essentially non-hostile and behave accordingly. It means that we will not jump to sinister conclusions every time a UFO/ETI related event occurs which we either do not fully understand, or which offends current sensibilities. Most importantly, it means we will reach out with peaceful intentions ourselves and in so doing maximize our potential for exchange and communication - an exchange which will be peaceful and beneficial to all involved. It is most likely that we have "nothing to fear but fear itself", so let us let go of our fear, and let us step out of the old paradigm of aggression and disunuty. Let us create a new reality, and a new way of seeing, one which embraces peace, calmness and unity. Let us give ETI the benefit of the doubt and assume non-hostility, until clearly proven otherwise. The old and disasterous ways of suspicion, militancy and aggression must give way to openness, peace and trust, for we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past generations as we begin so grand a journey. Too much is at stake, and we may possess only one chance to create a world - and a universe - guided by virtue. A HARVEST OF FEAR Copyright 1991 Steven M. Greer, M.D. The pursuit of truth requires the ability to see beyond the appearance of things to the meaning and substance behind the forms. In no field of study and research is this more essential than that of UFOlogy, a field beset by mystery, partial information, misinformation and deliberate disinformation. And, alas, in no field is there so great a deficiency of this very quality. Take for example the present climate where every rumor, fantasy and observation is given a spin to fit into the preconceived framework of 'alien' sinister designs and manipulations. From abductions, to animal 'mutilations', to secret goings-on at U.S. military bases, all are described in the 'sinister aliens' mold. The pervasive, if unspoken, status quo is to place all such events, real or imaginary, in the same dark and rather frightening shadows. To depart from this conventional wisdom, this unofficial party line, is to incur the derision of those self-appointed experts who, after all, know best. It would appear that the UFO hysteria pendulum has swung full cycle: If the 1950s were the era of gorgeous Venusians, space gods and saviors from the galactic federation, the past decade has brought us to the age of sinister 'aliens' snatching mother and child alike from their bedrooms, harvesting cattle, cats, dogs and even fetuses for obviously nefarious purposes, and the collaboration of military fascists and ;aliens' in a plan to dominate the earth! For the most part, those who claim to be objective UFO and 'abduction' researchers, as well as UFO journalists and authors, have been swept up in this hysteria, this harvest of fear. Even those who sincerely intend to "just describe the facts" are affected by the dominant milieu of fear, negativity and hysteria. Words such as victim, abductee, alien, mutilation, rape, sinister, disturbing, alarming, deception, controlling, manipulative, evil, and so on are accepted as automatic members of a UFO lexicon at once mandatory and unquestioned. There is an abundance of automatic interpretations and a real lack of deep analysis, which leaves us with nearly unquestioned - and unchallenged - conclusions, which are uniformly negative. Rather then objectively collecting facts, analyzing trends and making intelligent plans for future research and UFO-Human interactions, there exists an increasingly powerful machine of hysteria bringing forth a harvest of fear. And facts which do not fit into this fear and negativity paradigm are either ignored or deliberately debunked as 'alien' screen memories and deception. The real victim in all of this is, of course, Truth. Truth is hard to discern amid the din of hysteria and the clouds of fear currently holding sway over the UFO community. Events are prone to misinterpretation and even censure in this environment, and those facts which do survive intact are nonetheless presented with a patina of fear and paranoia. The danger in all of this is that we may perpetuate a trend which, while initially false, may create its own reality - and its own future conflicts. We must give serious thought and much reflection to this matter, for to do otherwise may result in serious and potentially catastrophic consequences for not only humanity as a whole, but for individual observers of the UFO phenomenon as well. Indeed, we do create our own reality, and we must contemplate deeply what that reality may be. Beyond these rather sweeping if not abstract concerns, there is the more immediate and ethical question of what all of this hysteria is doing to the numerous innocent percipients of the UFO phenomenon. Aside from the fact that the truth is being continuously if not unintentionally distorted, those individuals who have had close interactions (a.k.a. 'abductees' and 'contactees') with UFOs and their occupants are being forced, at times quite cruelly, to deny any positive or edifying aspects of their encounters, and are left to dwell only on the frightening and negative aspects of the experience. Is this common? Exceedingly so! We have interviewed several individuals who have stated that so-called 'abduction ressearchers' not only enforce a certain negative and fear-engendering interpretation to their experiences, but go further and actually 'throw out' any aspects of the experiences which do not fit this preconceived 'fear paradigm'. That is, positive, loving, healing and edifying experiences with extraterrestial beings are either ignored, or deemed screen memories which only constitute a further sinister deception by the ETs. Objectively, open-mindedness - and the truth - are cast away so that these experiences may be fit into a framework of pre- conceived (if unstated) negative conclusions. On the one hand, these researchers will go to great lengths to establish the credibility and veracity of their subjects, only to turn around and ignore or actively debunk those aspects of the experience which do not fit the researchers' own paradigm. If we are to pick and choose among the facts of these cases, could we not just as well contend that the negative experiences are the "screen memories" triggered by the individual's own internal fears and insecurities while the edifying and spiritual memories are the 'true' ones? If we are to pick and choose among the facts, why not just take the happy alternative? Indeed, one alternative is just as dishonest and dangerous as the other, and both should be avoided. It is imperative that we accept - and report - all the facts, and then analyze their meaning in a calm and NON-hysterical manner. With the information and experiences we collectively possess thus far, we can neither proclaim these extraterrestial beings to be sinister Darth Vader space conquerors, nor can we assert that they are perfect space gods. Our polarization on this qustion is one of the chief manifestations of a collective hysteria which is at once pervasive and unproductive. And the greatest task facing us is the elimination of this hysteria and the transcendence of our own fear. ********************************************************************* * -------->>> THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo <<<------- * *********************************************************************