How an online Ad about the "Royal Christmas" got me to write this post —about UFOs

While browsing X (Twitter) the other day, I was shown an ad fawning over King Charles of England and the protocols for the "Royal Christmas". That led me in unexpected directions, as you'll see

The inspiration for this substack post initially sprang from my irritability after seeing an ad about England’s Royal Family in my timeline on X (formerly Twitter) while I was searching for something else.

If you’ve been a subscriber of mine for a while, you know that where you end up at the conclusion of one my essays is not at all where you expected when you began reading…so enjoy the journey.

The ad in question was a link to a story whose author was fawning over the sheer complexity and yawn-inducing protocols surrounding the King of England’s Royal Christmas—who gets to attend, in what order, and when—and what kinds of gifts are acceptable, along with other bile-inducing details of Royal trivia that I could not care less about.

I came across it when I was searching futilely for updates on the “UAP disclosure” amendment to the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)—a pork filled over-spending bill that had just been passed by the Senate, which compounded my irritation.

What immediately went through my mind when I saw that ad was this: in 1776, the founders of this great nation of ours freed us from having to care one whit (or is it one Whig?) about what the “Royals” of England thought and did. As a citizen of the United States of America, I don’t need this “Royal family” drivel in my feed.

I have come to view the “Royal Family” with both disdain and distaste, intermingled with a big dollop of “who gives a flying rat’s derriere.”

The “Royals” are simply just people to me, descendants of a particular bloodline that exploited the underclasses of England to build their Empire over the centuries: a family who used force and power to tax and extract tribute from the serfs of England, and who also waged war to conquer other nations to compel them to sell their resources and pay homage, attention and tribute.

In no sense was this family ever divinely ennobled. I’m pretty sure I would have ended up in the stockade or hung for my insolent blasphemy if I were somehow transported back in time and space to Royal England of the 1700’s.

When I was growing up, I never viewed the fascination with Royal weddings or their other tabloid-worthy drama as anything more than sheer nonsense.

I don’t care who wore what protocol-insulting dress or hat or gloves to some fox hunt or horse race, and I don’t care whether the Prince or Princess caught doing so was or wasn’t committing a grievous faux-pas worthy of serious reportage in the Daily Sun or supermarket tabloid du jour.

I just. don’t. care.

But I do realize that many of the population of England have been ‘programmed’ to view the Royals with what seems to be to be undeserved reverence. It’s interesting to think about why that still continues.

This image was generated for me by ChatGPT4…read on for how it ties in!

I wouldn’t treat the King or Queen of England any differently that I would treat any other citizen of England if I met them on the street; I would treat them kindly, as I do for other people who treat me kindly, but they certainly don’t deserve, in my opinion, any particular deference, reverence or respect for their “position” of “authority”.

I would never kneel, genuflect, or kiss their gloves.

As I pondered all of this, I began thinking about how certain words and concepts—e.g., the very concept of “Royalty”— have been used to corral populations over time by controlling how we conceptualize and think or speak about certain “institutions”.

This is where my essay is about to take a sharp turn, are you ready?

When I first read the novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson in the late 1990s, I was fascinated by his explication of the idea of “neuro-linguistic programming”, and its supposed origins in the “Namshubs of Enki” from ancient Sumer.

The idea Stephenson was unpacking was that not only are certain words purposefully chosen to make us create (often incorrect) mental associations or concepts; but it extends the concept by claiming that the sounds of the syllables of the words themselves—the auditory patterns—could conceivably influence, rewire, and alter the functions of the human brain almost imperceptibly. Mind Control of the Sumerian kind.

What I started thinking about, in particular, is the modern “meme” (i.e., mental concept of a thing that is conveyed from mind-to-mind) that is encapsulated by our word “government”.

This train of thought came about because of my annoyance over the NDAA bill passed by Congress and its now neutered (thanks to Chuck Schumer) “UAP” amendment.

For those who don’t know: that amendment was intended to force the government to disclose what it knows about “UAPs” (UFOs) and “non-Human Intelligences” that were hinted at in the House Subcommittee hearing that included Dave Grusch.

Over the decades, we have been programmed to speak of, and think about, “THE government” as being some sort of separate monolithic entity: an independently existing “thing” with its own certain powers, authorities, and scope.

It’s been drilled into us that “The government” is some powerful maternalistic or paternalistic god-of-State that we must pay deference and respect to as we offer it sacrifices of our money burnt at the altar of the IRS.

But this concept of “government” as a unique “entity” is flawed: I prefer to substitute other words and phrases in place of the word “government” whenever it is used, in order to break the programming and convey a more appropriate and direct meaning of the word.

Government is, at its core, nothing more than “a group of other people with their own agendas and self-interests which may align or conflict with your own.”

It isn’t an overarching, monolithic entity in and of itself; it isn’t a “Ding an Sich” as Immanuel Kant conceptualized; it is simply a synonym for “another group of people with agendas.” That’s all it is.

The concept that our founding fathers had in mind was quite different than what has evolved: government was to be a mutually agreed-to collective “of the people, by the people, and for the people”—with the proviso that if this collective failed to serve the interests of the rest of the people in the future, then we had both the right and duty to abolish it and replace it with some new institution that did.

The concept was that we, the people, would willingly accept certain boundaries placed on what we could do (i.e., “laws”)—as well agree to rules that we would follow about how we would elect, administer, and adjudicate disputes, per the Constitution—in exchange for the agreement that the “collective”—the “State”—would defend our common interests.

This meant primarily in the military sense, but also in the sense of protecting our rights to life, property, liberty, speech, religion, and the pursuit of happiness free from criminality—whether that was at the hand of other citizens, other nations, or the government itself.

The idea of a censorial, invasive, oppressive, injection-mandating coercive taxation authority feeding a burdensome welfare state—which is what government has metastasized into today—was not at all what they envisioned.

What has evolved to be the modern American “government” is anything but an arrangement of voluntary cooperation for the common good; it has instead evolved into an authoritarian slave system in which you MUST pay tribute (tax), or you will lose your life and freedom (whether at the point of a gun or rotting away in jail.)

That’s not what the founding fathers had in mind…so how did we get here, from there?

Partly because of the passive acceptance of the meanings of words that form “memes”.

So, let’s do this instead: since “a group of other people with agendas and self-interests that may conflict with your own” as a drop-in replacement for “government” is a mouthful, and since we want to avoid the use of the word “government” because of its inappropriate (neuro-linguistically programmed?) “overloaded” meaning, let’s instead substitute another word whenever we want to discuss this concept: let’s use the word “Borg”.

When we use “Borg”, we simply mean “a group of other people with agendas…” etc. This word, of course, was chosen to substitute an entirely different “meme of meaning” which appears to be much more in alignment with today’s reality of “government.”

As I continued along this chain of thought, I was listening to a video about the summary of the latest NDAA bill that Congress passed—in particular, the section having to do with disclosure of “UFOs” or “UAP” information that the Borg has been withholding from the public for nearly a century.

It was completely neutered from what the original authors like Tim Burchett in the House had wanted.

I find it infuriating that Sen. Schumer and his crooked cronies in the Borg (see how that word Borg just flows more naturally off the tongue?) proposed a “document review board” for the “UFO documentation” that was to be modeled along the lines of the “JFK Assassination Records.”

As if the way that was handled—by obscuring the facts from the public for more than 50+ years—was some sort of admirable goal!

The Schumer proposal gives the Borg 25 years to dribble out essentially nothing of substance, just like they did for more 50 years with the JFK Assassination, and then even after all of that, the “President” still has the “authority” to continue to keep classified and hidden “information that was deemed vital to the national defense.”

Just as they have done with the rest of the JFK records.

So in other words…the Borg shut down any real attempt at disclosure of “the phenomenon” (even though the text of the measure actually mentioned Non-Human Intelligence!) and instead opted for business as usual: continued obfuscation of truth.

We need people in Congress with the backbone (and teeth) to forcefully push back on the special interests who keep this subject hidden inside the maw of the Borg.

The powerful, veiled interests in the MIC (Military Industrial ”Uber-Borg” Complex) have once again won: they kept the people from knowing what the “Borg” didn’t want us to know. This in brash defiance of oversight by Congress, which is in turn overseen by the People—a defiant act which should not be tolerated.

Whatever the truth is surrounding this issue—we, the people, have a fundamental, overarching RIGHT to know what has been withheld from us by the Borg and the MIC. We cannot allow the Borg to control this information anymore.

In this context, I came across another word whose use is also a form of deception and neural programming: the word “intelligence”, in the context of the “Intelligence Community” or “Intelligence Agencies.”

Here, the word “intelligence” nominally means “data or information.”

The use of this word in these contexts, however, tries to be sneakily conflated with the other meaning of “intelligence”, which is a description of the capacity to learn, understand or reason (“smartness”).

The subtle implication-by-association is that we should think of those in the “Intelligence Community” as being “smart”. I think not.

What we should instead call these agencies is what they actually do: surveillance.

They aren’t composed of "lots of smart people” so much as they are composed of busybodies and sociopaths who are interested in spying, obfuscating and controlling information. That’s not “Intelligence”…it’s something entirely different and malignant.

From now on, mentally transpose “Intelligence” in these contexts with “Surveillance.”

For example, the CIA becomes the “Central Surveillance Agency”, the DIA becomes the “Defense Surveillance Agency” and the “Intel Agencies” in general become “Surveillance Agencies” as part of the “Surveillance Community.”

This is much more truthful with regard to what they do, isn’t it?

However, since they also seem to be in the business of hiding information “because of national defense” (lots of things get hidden behind that national defense “meme”) we should also use the word “Tergiversate”.

So maybe we can call it the “Central Surveillance and Tergiversation Agency”.

Now the name of the “institution” really means what it actually does…

As I continued thinking about this UAP/UFO situation in particular, I came to this realization. As a human being, I have an inalienable right to KNOW whatever it is that I wish to know.

Nobody—and I mean, nobody—should rightfully have the authority or power to prevent anyone else from knowing whatever it is they wish to know.

As a citizen of a country that has laws that (supposedly) protect us from undue aggression or predation, however, it is acceptable that the Borg may—with our consent!— place certain reasonable limits on what I may DO with that which I know (i.e., I still can’t rob, cheat, injure, murder, steal, etc., no matter whether I have special knowledge to help me do those things, or not.)

There should absolutely not, however, be any BORG-imposed limits on what I may KNOW.

That right of knowledge should be an inviolate human right. How did we come to passively accept that the Borg may impose limits on what we may know?

People may say “well, you shouldn’t know the nuclear missile launch codes, for instance” but I would counter that by saying that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with me knowing those codes; it’s still unlawful (assuming lawlessness results in punishment, which is clearly not something that works these days—please refer to the Biden Crime Syndicate corruption for example) for me to DO anything harmful with this information.

Then they’ll say “well, it’s not that we’re worried that YOU have the launch codes; it’s that we can’t let them fall into the hands of the Russians. National Security, ya know.” Then they’ll broaden the reach of that claim by trying to persuade you that “sources and methods” of spying on other nations also needs to be kept secret; and before long, you find yourself right back where we are now. Overclassification of everything, because of a series of strawman arguments.

We need to separate the knowing from the potentiality or actuality of doing, because entangling these two things too tightly leads to the corrupt over-classification security state that defines the Borg as it exists now; a system in which classification is used to cover up and protect the Borg from consequences imposed on it by the non-Borg citizenry, who might be quite upset at what the Borg gets away with doing—and hiding—were it not for cover of secrecy.

The Borg wants to control knowledge because knowledge is power, and limiting knowledge is limiting power. I absolutely reject the idea that the Biden/Harris “Administration” (there’s another word to redefine—let’s call the B/H Administration the Borg Gaggle instead) has any legitimate authority to continue to limit what I may know, particularly with respect to potential non-Human Intelligences (hmm…there’s that pesky I-word again) or UFOs or UAPs or whatever they wish to call these phenomena.

For this reason, the continued tergiversation of our Surveillance Agencies with respect to the underlying truth of whatever the “UFO” or “UAP” or “Non-Human Intelligence” situation turns out to be —is completely, and utterly, unacceptable.

We deserve complete, unredacted and transparent disclosure of whatever it is that the Borg “knows” about these phenomena (and also the JFK Assassination! which may turn out to be connected) immediately—and without reservation.

We, the people, have a fundamental right to know; we have a right to formulate our own response to whatever that hidden knowledge portends, as well as having the right to reconstitute our “Borg” in any way that WE see fit so that it better comports with whatever that hidden knowledge reveals.

The era of the Tergiversate Surveillance Agencies (TSA’s) must come to an end.

It was no accident that I mentioned “TSA’s” have to go, because the current one with that same three-letter name needs to be eliminated, too. (I wrote about that long ago.)

So now you know where I ended up, after starting out being annoyed at the ad about the Royal Family’s Christmas.

---

I hope you enjoyed this latest post! More to come soon on AI, the Pandemic, and other topics.

CognitiveCarbon’s Content is a reader-supported publication. To support my writing and research work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber: at just $5 per month, it helps me support a family.

You can also buy me a coffee here. Thank you for reading!