#MouthsWideShut

Let’s be clear, there’s an almighty “flap” occurring in New Jersey right now, and its unlikely to have been caused by “…seagulls”.

There are hundreds of eyewitnesses, reams of video footage, and endless posts on Social Media, relating to the subject. Everyone in UFO-land is interviewing everyone else in UFO-land, in a desperate attempt to make sense of it all.

To misquote Churchill: ‘Never have there been quite so many people, with quite so many cameras, and yet so few answers’.

Rather than add to the speculation, let’s take a different approach. Let us ask ourselves: “Where have we heard this before?” Let’s step back from UFO-Land, from wild conspiracy theories, and seek-out an analogue, where the official narrative is being challenged, by incontrovertible facts. Let us consider: Archaeology.

Does it not seem eerie that both the Pentagon’s line of rebuttal, and that of mainstream Archaeology, are the exact same assertion, namely: “We don’t know who did this… nor can we explain it … but, it’s definitely not ‘X’ ”

This shared non-sequitur is revealing, because it forms a pattern of behaviour – and this pattern is almost more interesting  than the subject matter itself. We live in a time where the narratives of academia and those of government are being challenged by new channels of communication, that are emancipating: data, analysis, and conclusions.

When Egyptian protesters over-ran Tahrir Square in 2011, and when the government of Hosni Mubarak eventually fell, Western Governments giddily extolled the virtues of Social Media, for its furtherance of truth. And yet, when those Governments are now challenged by the very same democratisation of information, their reactions swiftly run-out of modernity… and instead become reliably ‘Old School’.

It speaks to a preference, and an age-old choice, that confronts any institution… “When confronted by a choice between ‘Power’ and ‘Truth’ …which one do we prefer?”

If the choice is ‘power’ and not ‘truth’, then the outcome is known from the start, and all that remains to be confirmed, is the timescale over which The Institution collapses.

Alternatively, if the choice is ‘truth’, then The Institution must undergo a reformation.

The worrisome aspect of all of this, is that it’s very hard to think of any scenario, in which The Institution gives-over power voluntarily, and without casualties.

In order to reform itself, The Institution needs to confront the fact that its data, its analysis, its conclusions, and its deeds in relation to all of these, are wrong – and this requires a 'Blood Sacrifice' of someone’s career, or someone’s department, or someone’s throne. The bigger The Institution’s mis-step, the larger the sacrifice must be, and the more bloody the sacrifice becomes.

This week, Admiral John Kirby told a press conference of bemused reporters that the unidentified flying objects seen over New Jersey were something ‘novel’, that required investigation. However, those of us with a broader perspective, are likely to conclude that this game of denial, obfuscation, litigation, and ultimately confession are as old as the hills – and a mode of behaviour that will only have one outcome.

This week, a choice was made, and all that now needs to be pondered, is the timescale over which The Institution collapses.

- Pal Blanko