Speaker 1: Welcome back to the deep Dive. Our mission here is
a pretty simple, really we take all this complex, high
stakes information that's shaping our world and we just we
try to distill it, boil it down, exactly, boil it
down into those core nuggets of insight. You need to
cut through all the noise.
Speaker 2: And today the noises it's louder than ever on this topic.
Speaker 1: It really is. Today we are diving, i mean headfirst
into a subject that has I think we can say
formally and irificably moved from the margins right into the
center of global national security.
Speaker 2: Without a doubt.
Speaker 1: We're talking about these incredible high level confirmations and the
well the incredibly confusing government narratives that are coming out
around recovered non human technology.
Speaker 2: It's an intellectual landscape that has just been completely transformable.
I mean for generations. You and I both know talking
about UFOs or flying saucers was a career enter It
was a guaranteed way to get dismissed, to be labeled
a crank. But our source material today, and we're mainly
drawing from commentary by the investigative journalist Michael Schellenberger on
News Nation, it shows us that the old way of
doing things, That institutional denial from Washington DC. It's basically failed.
Speaker 1: It's broken.
Speaker 2: It's broken. The narrative battle is now public. It's fierce,
and it's it's completely unprecedented in its gope.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's unpack that. We have to start with
the can blast, right, the core claim that frames this
entire deep dive, the hook the hook s. Shellenberger is
discussing testimony, testimony given by a very high level official
in a recent documentary, and we are talking about a
startling public assertion.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's about as blunt as it gets.
Speaker 1: The US government has recovered non human technology, craft, material, artifacts,
you name it, and is currently engaged in these highly classified,
maybe decades long efforts to reverse engineer it.
Speaker 2: And that claim, I mean, just pause on that for
a second. If it's true, it represents the single most
significant technological development in all of human history, three periods,
full stop. But for our purposes today, for analyzing the
shift in the conversation, the truth of the technology itself
is almost it's almost secondary.
Speaker 1: That's a fascinating way to put it.
Speaker 2: Why, Because the real story here is the institutional gravity
of who is making these claims. Now it's no longer
just a you know, a lone whistleblower risking their career
in the shadows. It's now a powerful, established figure lending
their name, their reputation, their institutional authority to this narrative.
Speaker 1: And that specific figure that Schollenberger keeps coming back to,
the one lending all this gravity, is Senator Marco Rubio.
Right now, for most people listening, you know, Rubio is
a well known senator, public figure. But what our sources
reveal about his specific role and his institutional weight that
is absolutely critical to understanding why this is being called
a historic statement.
Speaker 2: Precisely, this is why we all have to sit up
and pay attention. If we were talking about a claim
made by say a newly elected junior senator or some
pundit on TV, you.
Speaker 1: Could dismiss it. Political theater, you could dismiss it.
Speaker 2: But Schellenberger he zeros in on Rubio's specific standing, his
connections within the foreign policy and crucially the intelligence establishment.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what is that standing. Let's get specific.
Speaker 2: We are talking about someone who sits on the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence and he often serves as.
Speaker 1: The vice chairman, which is not a small role.
Speaker 2: It's one of the most powerful oversight positions in the
entire government. That position grants him access to intelligence that
is so far beyond what even most cabinet secretaries ever
get to see.
Speaker 1: So access isn't just about reading a memo that comes
across your desk.
Speaker 2: Not at all. It's about participating in the oversight, in
the policy discussions where this material is evaluated, where it's
budgeted for. These are the secret programs, the so called SAPs.
So if Rubio is making this claim, he is doing
it from a position of profound, direct knowledge about the
structure of these classified programs and the veracity of the
intelligence assessments that feed into them.
Speaker 1: He's not just repeating something he heard. He's seen the receipts,
so to speak.
Speaker 2: That's the implication. And Schellenberger didn't stop there. He went
even further in trying to contextualize Rubio's power. He called
him and this is a quote arguably number three in
foreign policy after the president.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, that that is an explosive claim about institutional power.
Speaker 2: It is, and it's designed to make the listener understand
that this testimony, this confirmation is coming from the absolute
core of the US national security apparatus.
Speaker 1: It's the closest thing we have to a genuine political
endorsement of this entire recovered craft narrative.
Speaker 2: It is. But what really drives on the political and
historical weight of this is this sebecific comparison. Selenberger uses
one to validate that number three status exactly. He compared
Rubio's stature and the alleged dual roles he plays in
influence and policy to Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 1: And that is not a name you just throw around
lightly center analogy. That's doing some heavy heavy lifting.
Speaker 2: Far more than just name dropping. We have to remember
who Henry Kissinger was.
Speaker 1: Institutionally the architect of so much Cold War policy right.
Speaker 2: He served simultaneously as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.
That was between nineteen seventy three and nineteen seventy five.
That dual role, it represents a near total monopolization of
US foreign and security policy.
Speaker 1: He was defining the goals as National Security Advisor.
Speaker 2: And then executing them on the global stage as Secretary
of State. He was both the strategist and the lead diplomat.
Speaker 1: Kissinger was the ultimate inside player, a figure whose influenced.
I mean it defined an entire era. He shaped everything
from detente with the Soviet Union to opening relations with China.
Speaker 2: His word was literally policy.
Speaker 1: It was policy.
Speaker 2: So when a journalist of Schollenberger's stature uses that comparison,
they aren't just saying Rubio is influential.
Speaker 1: No, It's much more than that.
Speaker 2: They are saying that Rubio's alleged confirmation of recovered non
human technology carries the weight of someone who has their
fingers on every single major global security level.
Speaker 1: The implication, then, is if a person like that, with
that kind of capital, is willing to risk it all
their reputation, their political future, their entire career to.
Speaker 2: State publicly that the US has recovered alien technology and
is trying to reverse engineer.
Speaker 1: It, then the intelligence backing up that claim must.
Speaker 2: Be terrifyingly compelling. It has to be airtight.
Speaker 1: It effectively yanks the entire conversation out of the domain
of fringe belief completely and implants it firmly, squarely in
the domain of critical national security policy.
Speaker 2: The historic moment isn't the discovery of the craft itself. Necessarily,
it's the public acknowledgment of the discovery by an official
of this political stature.
Speaker 1: We have officially moved beyond just asking are they real? Yes,
and we're now debating the geopolitical consequences of what are
we doing with them?
Speaker 2: And that transition that's the primary focus of this deep dive.
We're here to analyze the sie mix shift in how
official Washington is talking about this and the deep public
conflicts that are now erupting as a result.
Speaker 1: Right, Because this isn't a unified message, not by a
long shot.
Speaker 2: The historical context confirms this is serious, because we're tracking
the movement from UFO discussions being treated as you know,
purely speculative tinfoil hat territory, a footnote to be laughed at,
right to becoming the subject of very serious, very non
partisan congressional hearings with whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: And crucially, those whistleblowers are testifying under.
Speaker 2: Oath, under threat of perjury.
Speaker 1: That puts everything into a legal framework. It's not just
telling a story anymore.
Speaker 2: It is, and it's a framework that these official denials,
which are often phrased in these highly specific, defensive ways,
now have to contend with.
Speaker 1: The implication then of having someone of Rubio status confirming
the narrative is that the intelligence that supports those sworn
testimonies is now being inutionally validated.
Speaker 2: Validated at the highest levels of oversight, which leads you
to ask, I mean, you have to ask.
Speaker 1: What kind of internal battle must have.
Speaker 2: Been fought, exactly what kind of political or intelligence war
was waged behind the scenes for someone of Rubio's institutional
weight to finally go public with this.
Speaker 1: It suggests that the pressure from the whistleblowers, from journalists
like Schallenberger, it must have become so immense that the
old structures of denial, that institutional inertia.
Speaker 2: Have finally fracture. The dam broke.
Speaker 1: The dam broke. So the story this revelation is as
much about the politics of secrecy as it is about
the technology itself.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate institutional drama. Really. You have the old guard,
represented by the deep military intelligence state that wants to
maintain absolute secrecy and control over what might be the
most powerful information in human history. And on the other
side you have this new coalition. It seems to be
driven by oversight figures like Rubio and some high ranking
intelligence directors, and they're acknowledging the seriousness of it all.
Speaker 1: Maybe because they see the danger, the danger of trying
to control something that major global rivals are also allegedly
chasing after.
Speaker 2: I think that's a huge part of it, and that
inherent conflict, that tension, drives us directly into the heart
of the matter for today, the battle of narratives, the
battle of narratives, where these conflicting messages from the highest
levels are creating just mass institutional dissonance.
Speaker 1: And that dissonance it's toxic.
Speaker 2: It's toxic to public trust, it's toxic to national security cohesion.
It's impossible for an informed citizen to look at this
and reconcile two fundamentally contradictory positions coming from two branches
of the government that are supposed to be working together.
Speaker 1: So let's define the sides in this battle. Schellenberger identifies
what we can call the pro disclosure coalition, this group
of high level officials who are taking the claim seriously right.
Speaker 2: They're agreeing to be interviewed, They're moving the official narrative forward,
even if just by inches.
Speaker 1: So who are we talking about specifically? Who is in
this coalition?
Speaker 2: The list is well, it's formidable, and their simple inclusion
in the documentary is, as Schellenberger argues, itself, a major statement.
Speaker 1: It's an action. The act of participating is the message.
Speaker 2: Precisely, we're talking about the President, the Vice president, the
Director of National Intelligence, the DNI, and the Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this isn't just some political windo addressing this
is the core of the executive branch and the intelligence community.
Speaker 2: When the DNI agrees to engage on this subject, even tangentially,
they are signaling to the entire intelligence community, all seventeen agencies,
that this information must now be prioritized and processed seriously,
regardless of where it came from.
Speaker 1: And the willingness of these officials to even comment, it
suggests a fundamental shift in perception right inside the executive
and intelligence branches.
Speaker 2: They're putting their credibility on the line. I mean, think
about the Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: Their entire job is managing the foreign policy implications of
American power into technology.
Speaker 2: Right, So if they believe this technology is real, they
are signaling that it now affects our relationships with our
allies and more importantly, with our rivals.
Speaker 1: It moves the issue from being a scientific curiosity.
Speaker 2: Something for the lab coats to figure out to.
Speaker 1: Being an active policy shaping factor. Their participation is an
implicit endorsement of the gravity of the subject.
Speaker 2: It confirms that it's consequential, it's legitimate, and it places
it firmly in the domain of policy and strategy. It's
an override of decades of internal skepticism and frankly ridicule.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's one side the pro disclosure coalition. But
standing in stark, almost defiant opposition to them is the
Defense Department, or.
Speaker 2: As Schollenberger referred to them, very starkly, the Department of War.
Speaker 1: And their position is described as consistent, almost dogmatic for years.
Speaker 2: Absolutely their consistent line, which they repeat with just unwavering discipline,
is this there's no eviden of extraterrestrials.
Speaker 1: And that denial that phrase has been the default setting
for the military industrial complex for what fifty sixty seventy
yars at least.
Speaker 2: But here's where the institutional analysis becomes so critical. Schallenberger
highlighted the extreme specificity of their rebuttal.
Speaker 1: This is the absolute core of it, the definitional loophole
we have to dissect. Yes, The journalist noted that when
he pressed the Defense Department on this, they refer back
to a specific report and they underscore their deliberate, almost
legalistic choice of terminology.
Speaker 2: The word is extraterrestrials. Extraterrestrials, and that choice of words
it's everything, It's the whole game.
Speaker 1: So why why is that one word so important?
Speaker 2: Because the core claims coming from the whistle blowers and
from high level officials like Rubio, they often use a different.
Speaker 1: Term non human sources, non human sources.
Speaker 2: So by rigorously, repeatedly and exclusively denying the existence of extraterrestrials,
the Defense Department maintains a very precise, legally defensible denial
that does not actually refute the claims being made by
the DNI or by Senator Rubio.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible piece of linguistic maneuvering. Let's really explore
the implications of this. Yeah, if you deny extraterrestrials, you
are only denying one possible origin story, one of many. Yes,
you're denying that the technology comes from outside Earth's solar system,
driven by biological beings from another planet.
Speaker 2: Little green men in a flying saucer.
Speaker 1: Right, But the term non human sources is so much
more expansive. What if this denial is just a strategic smokescreen,
a way to tell a truth. It isn't the whole truth.
Speaker 2: The possibilities they implicitly leave open are I mean, they're
both fascinating and deeply complex. If it's non human technology
but it's not extraterrestrial, well what on earth is it?
Speaker 1: You're forced to consider these other non alien origins that
would still fundamentally rewrite our understanding of physics.
Speaker 2: And reality exactly. For example, you have the theory of
interdimensional origin.
Speaker 1: Right, the idea that these objects could originate from a
parallel space or a different dimension that just intermittently intersects
with our own reality.
Speaker 2: In that case, they would be non human absolutely, but
they would not be extraterrestrial. They wouldn't have traversed light
years of space in a physical craft.
Speaker 1: So the Defense Department could stand up and truthfully say
there are no space aliens, while knowing full well that
they are reverse engineering technology from a radically different physical
reality right next door.
Speaker 2: Or consider the temporal hypothesis.
Speaker 1: Technology from our own future.
Speaker 2: From our own distant future, recovered from a crash in
the past. Again, this would be non human in the
sense that it doesn't belong to our current human civilization.
It's from a different when, not a.
Speaker 1: Different where, and the denial would still hold.
Speaker 2: The denial holds perfectly. Or you know, going back to
some of the older theories, maybe it's an advanced intelligence
that originates from deep within the Earth itself, the oceans,
the mantle.
Speaker 1: The crypto terrestrial intelligence.
Speaker 2: Right, non human but entirely terrestrial. By sticking to their
very specific denial of extraterrestrials, the OD maintains its operational
secrecy while technically not lying about that one very narrow definition.
Speaker 1: So it creates this bizarre situation where the civilian government
and the intelligence community are signaling this is the most
profound technological reality.
Speaker 2: We face, while the military signaling our specific, decades old
cover story remains intact.
Speaker 1: Move along, and the public, who is caught in the
middle of this just here's noise or worse, they assume
it's a massive cover up fueled by incompetence or even.
Speaker 2: Malice, and that contradictory message that is the core of
the problem, Schollenberger identified it fosters what we're calling institutional dissonance.
Speaker 1: It's not just two people disagreeing.
Speaker 2: No, it's two massive government organizations using precise, weaponized language
to simultaneously deny and affirm the same ultimate phenomenon, the
recovery of radically advanced technology.
Speaker 1: And according to the journalist, this just it cannot stand.
The institutional confusion is so profound, so dangerous, that it
necessitates intervention from the very top.
Speaker 2: The President needs to address this issue directly, that's the argument.
Address it to the American people to resolve the chaos,
regardless of what the ultimate truth is.
Speaker 1: Because the ambiguity itself is the threat.
Speaker 2: The current level of ambiguity breeds public distrust on a
massive scale. If the Secretary of State and the Director
of National Intelligence are acknowledging the seriousness of this, and
yet the Pentagon is still maintaining a denial based on
a definitional loophole.
Speaker 1: Then the public is forced to conclude one of two things.
Speaker 2: Either a vast conspiracy is ongoing, or the United States
government is so fractured, so broken, that it cannot coordinate
a basic truth statement on what could be an existential topic.
Speaker 1: The need for clarity, then is paramount, and Schellenberger offers
the required alternative to this chaos. He says, Look, if
the claims about recover technology are in.
Speaker 2: Fact false, if Rubio and this entire coalition have somehow
been miss led by flawed data by old intelligence, then.
Speaker 1: The President has to definitively step forward and reveal that
the entire story is and this is his word, a delusion.
Speaker 2: And he even specified the nature of that potential delusion.
He called it a kind of circular reporting based on
this information from the fifties and sixties.
Speaker 1: Which provides a perfect off ramp, doesn't it. It's a
way for the Defense Department's denial to make complete sense.
Speaker 2: It's the get out of jail free card. If this
entire recovered craft narrative is just an echo chamber old
false intelligence reports being repeatedly reclassified and revalidated by different
compartmentalized units over decades.
Speaker 1: A bureaucratic myth that took on a life of its.
Speaker 2: Own exactly, then the commander in chief must officially step
in and extinguish that narrative, put it to bed once
and for all.
Speaker 1: That, to me is the real policy dilemma here. The
government has to choose a lane.
Speaker 2: It has to.
Speaker 1: Either we have recovered epic defining technology and we need
a unified national security response to it, or.
Speaker 2: A significant portion of our highest level political and intelligence
leadership is actively being fooled by a seven year old
internal intelligence failure.
Speaker 1: And both of those realities are terrifying in their own way,
and both demand presidential clarity and resolution.
Speaker 2: The stakes are just incredibly high regardless of which reality
is true. If the government confirms the technology is real
and necessitates an immediate global policy shift, everything changes.
Speaker 1: And if they confirm it's a delusion.
Speaker 2: Then it necessitates a massive, painful overhaul of our intelligence
assessment and counterintelligence security to prevent such a catastrophic institutional
failure from ever happening again. They have to ask how
this was allowed to happen.
Speaker 1: What's fascinating here, and I want to really underline this
is that the urgency we are discussing is derived purely
from the government's own conflicting rhetoric. It's not the opinion
of the journalist himself.
Speaker 2: He is very clear on that point.
Speaker 1: He made sure to clarify. Schellenberger stated he doesn't have
secret clearance, which means his entire analysis is based on
what the officials themselves are saying and doing. In public.
Speaker 2: That journalistic distance is crucial. It keeps the focus entirely
on the institutional dissonance, not on belief.
Speaker 1: Right, he argues, and I think we agree that it
doesn't matter what an individual journalist or you or I believe.
Speaker 2: What matters is the institutional position of the people who
actually run the government, the DNI, the Secretary of State,
the Vice President. Their involvement, their words, legitimize the fear
that we are operating under a state of profound official confusion.
Speaker 1: And as serious as that domestic confusion is, the implications
they just zoom out far, far beyond US borders. No, absolutely,
they move us into the territory of genuine global security
and conflict. And this is where the source material drops
the second major bombshell.
Speaker 2: It expands the playing field dramatically.
Speaker 1: It moves us from a domestic squabble to a global
technological free for all.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets really interesting because the documentary
that Schollenberger is referencing it claims that the US is
not operating in a vacuum.
Speaker 1: Here, We're not alone.
Speaker 2: If this technology is real and has been recovered, the
effort to reverse engineer it is not some secret American
solo project. It's a global arms race, a secret global
arms race.
Speaker 1: The narrative suggests that the recovery of these artifacts, these
craft is not a uniquely American phenomenon.
Speaker 2: No, specifically, the key geopolitical actors cited as participating in
this secret high stakes reverse engineering.
Speaker 1: At Russia and China.
Speaker 2: Russia and China, the claim is they have also found
craft and are also reverse engineering.
Speaker 1: If that claim is true, I mean, just think about that.
If it's true, then the entire dynamics of twenty first
century global conflict are being rewritten in secret right now.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about hypersonic missiles or next gen stealth bombers.
We are talking about a competition for physics defying technology.
Speaker 1: And Schellenberger explicitly characterized this activity as a secret arms
race happening internationally. This elevates the issue from a niche
intelligence debate.
Speaker 2: Into the primary, unacknowledged geopolitical concern of our time.
Speaker 1: Let's dedicate some real time to analyzing the security implications
of this because historically arms races, you know, the naval
competition before World War One, the nuclear race of the
Cold War, they were defined by a certain kind of logic.
Speaker 2: Mutually assured destruction, relatively predictable physics. We knew what a
bomb did, we knew how a missile flew. This is
This is fundamentally different. Also, the nuclear arms race was
defined by energy release and delivery systems, right, but it
all operated within known physics, Newtonian and relativistic physics.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: A reverse engineering race for non human technology implies competing
for a breakthrough in propulsion or energy generation or material
science that operates on principles we do not yet understand.
Speaker 1: You're talking about things like zero point energy, gravity manipulation,
maybe even instantaneous travel.
Speaker 2: Things that sound like science fiction but would become military reality. Now,
imagine the stakes of a race like that. Okay, If
China or Russia achieves a successful breakthrough, first, let's just
say they figure out stable anti gravity.
Speaker 1: Propulsion, what have is the next day?
Speaker 2: The next day, they would instantly render every aircraft carrier,
every bomber, and every strategic nuclear deterrent system the US
possesses functionally obsolete.
Speaker 1: Just gone militarily worthless.
Speaker 2: They would possess absolute, unchallengeable military dominance over the entire
planet overnight.
Speaker 1: The security implications are staggering because of the potential jumping capability.
It's not linear, it's not the next step up.
Speaker 2: It is exponential. We are talking about leapfrogging the next
five hundred years of conventional technological development in a single breakthrough.
Speaker 1: If a nation masters a technology that allows for silent, instantaneous,
and invisible deployment of force anywhere on.
Speaker 2: Earth, all concepts of deterrence of border security, they just collapse.
They become meaningless.
Speaker 1: And the secrecy of it all just makes a threat worse.
Speaker 2: It exacerbates it immensely. Unlike the Cold War, where the
US and the Soviet Union could monitor each other's nuclear
tests and missile deployments with satellites.
Speaker 1: And spies, we had eyes on them, they had eyes
on us.
Speaker 2: Right, this is an arms race that's supposedly taking place
entirely behind closed doors, hidden not just from the public,
but apparently hidden even from parts of the US government
itself because of this extreme compartmentalization.
Speaker 1: The instability is inherent in that lack of transparency. If
the US government, or let's be specific, the Department of
War is still publicly denying the very existence of the
technology being sought, how can.
Speaker 2: They possibly accurately assess the threat level posed by Russian
or Chinese progress in the same field.
Speaker 1: They can't.
Speaker 2: They're fighting a secret war while publicly pretending the weapons
don't exist, which means a unified, coherent threat assessment is impossible.
Speaker 1: This internal dissonance, this split personality, it places the US
at a severe, strictrategic disadvantage.
Speaker 2: It has to. While the DNI and the intelligence community
might be aware of the severity of this global competition,
the military branch that is responsible for designing and deploying
our defenses, the Defense Department, is simultaneously locked into a
seventy year old denial paradigm.
Speaker 1: So what does that suggest? I mean there are only
two options, right.
Speaker 2: It suggests either massive organizational failure where information is deliberately
siloed to keep one hand from knowing what the other
is doing. Or or it's an unprecedented level of strategic denial,
a deception operation designed to fool our global rivals. But
if it's the latter, the collateral damage is the American
public's trust and the cohesion of our own national security apparatus.
You're fooling your own people too.
Speaker 1: Let's pivot back to Shallenberger's argument about urgency. He argues
that this situation demands serious consideration because the alleged reality
of this arms race contrasts so sharply with how UFOs
have been dismissed for so long.
Speaker 2: Right, the threat isn't just the technology itself, it's the asymmetry,
the asymmetry of knowledge and the asymmetry of official response.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2: If the US is truly in a technological race against
China and Russia over artifacts that could redefine warfare, then
the military's adherence to the no evidence of extraterrestrials line
becomes a profound liability.
Speaker 1: Because it hobbles your own response.
Speaker 2: It means key parts of our own defense architecture might
be funded, designed, and deployed based on an incomplete or
even a deliberately misleading threat assessment.
Speaker 1: Think about something as simple as resource allocation the budget.
Speaker 2: How do you justify budgeting billions of dollars for reverse
engineering a technology you can't publicly acknowledge your studying? How
do you staff these programs? How do you train personnel
for a confrontation with technology you deny exists?
Speaker 1: The dissonance creates enormous inefficiency and risk. You're fighting with
one arm tied behind your back.
Speaker 2: And this feeds right back into why the institutional weight
of that pro disclosure coalition is so vital.
Speaker 1: The DNI, the Secretary of State.
Speaker 2: When they engage with this subject, they are implicitly trying
to override the traditional military gatekeepers. They are attempting to
force the acknowledgment of the reality of this global arms
race into the highest policy making tiers of government.
Speaker 1: The argument being made then is that the status quo
is just fundamentally unstable. It can't last.
Speaker 2: You cannot sustain a situation where the highest levels of
civilian and intelligence leadership are signaling this is an unprecedented
technological discovery and geopolitical contest.
Speaker 1: While the Department of War insists move along. Nothing to
see here, only intergalactic space aliens, which again they're not
even seeing, right.
Speaker 2: It's a non denial denial, and this internal conflict it
compromises our position globally. How so our allies, particularly in
NATO or in the Pacific, they must also be grappling
with these claims. They see what we see, of course,
so if the US, their primary global security partner, is
broadcasting these wildly conflicting narratives. One can firming the arms race,
one denying the source. It completely undermines international policy coordination
at a time when cohesion is needed most.
Speaker 1: The sheer political audacity of the contradiction is what makes
this moment so unique. It's not just a difference of opinion.
It's a difference in reality definition being propagated by major
bodies of the.
Speaker 2: Same government, and it demands resolution, which is where we
have to bring this discussion full circle. We have to
synthesize this paradox.
Speaker 1: We've laid out the historical confirmation by high level officials
like Rubio.
Speaker 2: The internal policy split represented by that definitional.
Speaker 1: Loophole, and the resulting secret arms race with our major
global rivals.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect storm of confusion.
Speaker 1: We are living in a moment that is defined by
staggering paradox. You have these high level officials agreeing this
is serious, that non human technology has been recovered and
that a reverse engineering program is happening as part of
a global technological scramble.
Speaker 2: And juxtaposed directly against that, you have a specific years long,
carefully where denial from the Defense Department.
Speaker 1: A denial which is arguably only possible because of the
very specific terminology they employ, denying extraterrestrials while remaining totally
silent on non human sources.
Speaker 2: And the result is narrative chaos. The choice you're left
with is binary, and it's terrifying either way.
Speaker 1: What are the two choices.
Speaker 2: Either the most powerful intelligence and foreign policy officials in
the country are participating in a massive, costly and dangerous
delusion based on half century old misinformation.
Speaker 1: Which would mean an institutional security failure of epic.
Speaker 2: Proportions, or the technological breakthrough of human history is being
confirmed by the people who manage global security, while the
public remains confused by institutional stonewalling driven by narrow semantics.
Speaker 1: The conversation, as Schellenberger noted, it has to shift now.
It has to move away from speculation. Clearly, we're not
here to endlessly speculate on how the technology works or
where the craft came from. He says, that's a distraction,
and he's right.
Speaker 2: The power lies with the people who run the government now,
the current executive and intelligence branches. They have the ability,
and I would argue the institutional obligation to tell the
public what the reality.
Speaker 1: Is the era of just asking questions is over. Now
we demand a singular, coherent answer.
Speaker 2: And that answer has to come from the highest office.
It has to be a presidential level statement, because the
integrity of governance itself is now at stake.
Speaker 1: If the President, the Vice president, and the Secretary of
State are engaging with this narrative, they have to be
the ones to finalize it.
Speaker 2: The public needs to know. Are we in a secret
arms race for revolutionary tech that threatens to destabilize global power?
Or has our entire official apparatus been compromised by a
decade's old circular lie that's wasting vast resources in political.
Speaker 1: Capital and the risk of maintaining this silence this dissonance
is that we may lose this arms race entirely.
Speaker 2: And not because of a lack of genius or a
lack of resources.
Speaker 1: But because of institutional denial and cognitive dissonance. We cannot
effectively fight a secret global technological war if half of
our own government insists the enemy doesn't.
Speaker 2: Exist, or at least doesn't exist in the way we
usually define them.
Speaker 1: That high level conflicting messaging is the single biggest operational
threat to effective governance on this issue.
Speaker 2: It creates a vulnerability, a vulnerability that Russia and China,
if they are indeed engaged in this reverse engineering effort,
are surely exploiting. They must be leveraging the US government's
self imposed confusion.
Speaker 1: It's just an amazing and frankly a precarious position for
a society to be in. It really is. It is
so we've established, based on these sources, that we are
living in a moment where major global powers, the US, Russia,
China are allegedly involved in a secret existential arms race
over recovered non human technology.
Speaker 2: This is being confirmed by some of the most powerful
people in the US.
Speaker 1: Government, while another key branch of that same government denies
it entirely, creating massive institutional instability.
Speaker 2: The pressure for resolution is immense, and it is only growing.
The longer this state of paradox persists, the greater the
risk of a strategic failure.
Speaker 1: And that failure could be anything. It could be losing
the technological race, or it could be the complete collapse
of public faith and governance itself.
Speaker 2: Either one is a catastrophe.
Speaker 1: So this is the final thought we want to leave
you with today. Something pretty profound to mull Over especially
given the geopolitical stakes we've discussed. If the highest levels
of our government are openly split on whether the most
profound technological discovery in human history is real or a
decade's old delusion.
Speaker 2: A delusion significant enough to still command the attention of
an official being compared to Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 1: What level of evidence or which single official figure would
it truly take for you to feel fully informed? And
maybe more importantly, what do you believe is the biggest
risk of having these deeply conflicting, potentially globally destabilizing messages
persist in the meantime.
Speaker 2: Think about the implications of that secret arms race, the
potential for a world power to gain absolute dominance through
non human technology, and the consequences of our own government's ambiguity.
Speaker 1: Leave a comment and let us know your stand We'll
be tracking them on this this unprecedented moment of institutional
revelation and denial. Thanks for diving deep with us.
Speaker 2: We'll see you next time.