The issue of secrecy is one counter to the entire flow of media in our media-saturated culture. We're so used to news feeding
on itself, making public every last thing about everything remotely interesting that when news goes in the opposite direction
it becomes automatically discredited. So many secrets leak out -- spousal cheating, corruption, scandal-- that surely those
in power can keep nothing from us!
We're also told flat out not to believe everything the news and those in power say and yet we still back off of any
topic the media belittles, as if we're still struggling with school yard-taunting trauma. We don't want to be considered crazy
by mentioning we think some high powered cabal in the corporate-governmental substrata is keeping the truth about UFOs from
us, for example. "We can't handle the truth," we prove it by our willingness to laugh it off, to call anyone who says they're
real crazy; you could be thinking that right now, about me, but I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.
And yet, UFOs are a part of the culture. Everyone knows about them and jokes about flying saucers, haha, and yet through
the joking about it they at least begin to follow it, to watch a few of the constant stream of documentary cable shows. Is
this perhaps some slow burn acclimation process of the media? It's a way of deflecting real concern, perhaps. When we're still
stuck on square one (do they exist?) then we're not freaking out about square three (what do they want from us?) and square
four (there's nothing we can do to stop them). Thus the media depicts our doubt and disbelief as a kind of preemptive weapon
So-- what if the upper echelons of a black ops government used Brechtian post-modernism to simultaneously educate and placate
the world on the subject of UFOs, aliens, and our spiritual future. And the worst part of all? You already know this to
be true. Read all about it in Bruce Rux's classic book, Hollywood Vs. The Aliens!
There's two schools of thought on this issue, one of which is that the UFO-alien connection is a fabrication by black ops
military to cover experiments with saucer-shaped craft pioneered by the Nazis (via Project Paperclip via the Thule Society).
Another is that the truth of an alien presence is deliberately muddied via the tactics of post-modern Brechtian theater.
Such an example lives in the two headline switch of Roswell in 1947 -- from 'Alien UFO crash' to 'weather balloon!'
A classic way to imagine this on a less controversial scale would be via the films of Godard. There's a scene in First
Name: Carmen (1983), for example, wherein a shoot-out between sexy young terrorist bank robbers and French police is
going on in a hotel wherein elderly residents read newspapers in the various seats around the lobby, barely concerned about
the deliberately fake-seeming violence, the events the way tolerant grandparents might react to their grandchildren running
through the living room with toy guns. Ah, but are they supposed to be toy guns? Which realm of belief are we on, the cops
and robbers side, who see the shooting as real (narrative immersion), or the elderly hotel guests who see it--if at all--as
young people making a movie, or just acting out May 68-style agitprop theater?.
How can we tell which is which as far as what's supposed to be 'real' within Code Name; Carmen? By interjecting chaotic,
comic but pedestrian elements into real-life bank robberies, for example, the situation can become confused. If you rob a
bank dressed as clowns with someone filming like it's a Hollywood action film, how would people react? What if the tellers
gave you the money, real money, while still confused about your authenticity? No one knows how to react in those metatextual
situations. There is no correct response so the bank patrons become very uncertain and opt to laugh it off with hip disaffection.
The last thing any of them (or us) want is to seem like squares dumb enough to fall for the 'candid camera' stunt theater!
This confusion puts reality into a realm known as Brechtian post-modernism, where all these differences are transcended.
Ideally, in these instances, the 'real' beneath the signifier is revealed; the absurdity of money itself, of class, of ownership,
of government, and capitalism as a whole, is laid bare.
Now apply this to a UFO crash, something so unbelievable in and of itself, so out of the realm of normal experience that
it makes our previous example of the hoax bank robbery seem inconsequential. Here much more is at stake than capitalism's
tenuous hold on our collective psyche. It is the Big Other government's job first and foremost to protect this hold. to re-attenuate
if weakened, to placate the public so they can go about their business without panicking.
This is where the Big Other's 'retournement' of Brechtian theater comes into play. If the Big Other brings a lifesize alien
dummy to a UFO crash scene the whole believability factor evaporates. By making a mask of an alien face and pulling it off
a human being at a press conference you instantly relegate all alien faces as mere masks. In the below video about the 1987
Phoenix lights, we see how the mayor tried this approach, and it worked beautifully. Naturally the thousands of witnesses
who were all freaked out became irate over the alien costume, but at least they were no longer freaked out and terrified.
The mayor shifted their terror (which he could do nothing about, as the UFO was completely unknown and therefor unstoppable)
to anger at him for not taking them seriously. But the thing is, the mayor saw the lights too. He did what he had to do in
order to stop a citywide panic.
When people call the police after seeing a UFO they show how we're not ready for full UFO disclosure. Because we're still
expecting our Big Other to come in and 'make it better.' The mask used in the press conference in this way perhaps harkens
back to the mimetic magic and demonic masks of tribal ceremonies throughout the world. In creating masks of demons, the actual
demon is contained in the realm of fiction. Anthropologist called it mimetic magic; Jungians call it myth; you can call it
Furthering this strategy are films like Hangar 18 (1980), which retrofit the truth with unbearably
crappy special effects: the captured crashed saucer (below)looks like a bunch of suitcases spray-painted together in a big
pile and the aliens look like they were kicked out of a Star Trek Next Generation audition room. However it is their
very cheapness that makes them feel more authentic. Part of this is because we're conditioned to associate 'education' and
'truth' with bad, faded film stock and crappy special effects because of low budget 'safety' films from elementary school,
splice-ridden film strips, faded educational documentaries, and outmoded bus safety films. Hanger 18 takes its ideas
from 1970s paranoia films and its look from 70's TV like the Rockford Files: everything from NASA to the press to
Air Force HQ to the president seems to all take place in a single low budget set. The titular hangar is just hanging out
there in the middle of nowhere.
In Hanger 18 we follow the the military crew under officer Harry Forbes (Darren McGavin) who are initially excited
about the recovered alien craft they found. Such earth shattering news! But the next day Forbes tells him it's all been classified
top secret; those who discovered it are left out of the loop via some hilariously dissociative language from Harry. He tells
them it's all being taken care of on a need-to-know basis: "It's not necessary... it's all going to come out in the report.
That's all you have to know for now... everything's going to be all right."
That's all the public needed to know: everything was going to be all right. The extreme cheapness of the film serves the same
ingenious propaganda purpose: "Everything's going to be all right. Look at how underfunded the aliens are! How fake! You'd
be a fool to take them seriously. Nothing to worry about, ask us no questions, just go about your business."
The whole issue of belief is central to American thinking, to the point where even atheists feel the need to trumpet loudly
all they do not believe in. In Russia, Hangar 18 was the first western movie shown on TV, and a whole generation of
Soviet kids grew up to be diehard fans. They know the events are true! Being Russian, belief never even enters into it. Maybe
that's part of their heritage vs. ours, and is something so eloquently discussed by Slavoj Zizek, that in life under communism
everyone knew they were just pretending to believe in the communist system; they celebrated and marched in solidarity
purely as a performance for the Big Other. When communism fell and the wall came down, it was a tipping point moment --suddenly
everyone finally admitted there was nothing there. In this way tyranny can set you free, because it shows you the folly of
belief itself (and that includes atheism) rather just knowing nothing is real.
As humans we need mysteries; they distract us from the ugly realities of time and space. These mysteries get us ready for
bigger things. As children, once we found out where babies came from, that sad shock of ugly bio-awareness signaled the beginning
of the end of childhood. As long as we are snooping through declassified documents and parent's bedroom drawers we are innocent
and excited about the mystery of our origin. Once there can be no doubt where we come from, we're grossed out. Tragic as that
is, we're better off knowing the boogeyman is real, no matter how much sleep we lose. Then again, as long as we have the shadow
of doubt, the long shot it's just monsters in the closet and water under the bed, maybe we can get to sleep, sink back into
the narrative of the imaginary, and dream a little dream of time, space, logic, God, and capitalism. .