WORD: 2012 : From Fears to Camelot : A Meta-metaphysical Analysis

Throughout the history of human civilization, "fear" has been a controversial issue. Although arguably, the effects of fear reflect in the actions of all intelligent life forms, from mammals to insects, and perhaps, in an allegoric manner, even single cellular life forms, still, because apparently, our conceptual cognitive capabilities surpass those of all other known earthly species, our "relationship with fear", is more, I would say, "complicated". This is understandable. While it does not take a genius to understand the biological evolutional purpose of fear, the purpose of human civilizations is vague, to say the least, and as such, it leaves many aspects of our lives poorly explained, and open to interpretation.

A popular notion in today's somewhat reactionary western civilization, is that fear is the manner, by which parties, external to our daily existence, attempt to subdue us, so to willingly follow an agenda, be it to fight wars, which do not affect our personal reality, with the threat, that unless we strike preemptively, these wars will reach our doorstep, or to support issues of a more financial nature, such as purchasing earthly-friendly goods, to prevent an alleged environmental apocalypse. To explain, regardless if these causes are justified or not, the manner by which these parties affect our decision, and gain our support, is through inducing us with fears. The same can be said with respect to preemptive medicine treatments, diets, and the likes. We are persuaded to adapt to "healthy habits", through the use of fear.

Still, fear is hardly "cherished" by society. Similar to as in the principles of evolution, our society cherishes those who are successful, and success often demands sacrifice, which in many cases demands we conquer our fears. Moreover, many times, to achieve specific goals, we may have to risk the security we have in our lives, just to have a chance to be successful. For example, in the world of commerce, many times, entrepreneurs must risk their endeavors, so to be able to exploit opportunities, and in many cases, it is this boldness, if not utter foolishness, which is mandatory for financial success. Furthermore, even in our personal lives, no one likes cowards. No one respects individuals who fail to "do the right thing", due to their cowardliness, or individuals who are too afraid to be accountable for their actions.

In short, our concept of fear reflects our morality, and as such, it is subjective, and changeable. What at one time, we may consider as being responsible, at another time, or in a different social environment, we may consider as reflecting cowardliness. What we once considered bravery, we may easily judge as stupidity, in a different disposition. Therefore, being this fluid, we would be wrong to embrace only one perspective, with respect to fear, as unintentionally, we may be justifying many cherished aspects of our lives, through fear. For example, if we exercise daily, we may be unaware, that we are motivated by a collection of fears, which we attempt to solve, such as the fear we will look unattractive, the fear of diseases (such as heart conditions, for example), and many others. Had we known, all our fears are misplaced, I doubt if today, so many individuals would invest their time in sports, merely for the immediate joy of it, as generally, we prefer to be more lazy.

Still, even if so, usually, we fail to recognize the existence of such fears, and instead, generally, we view such activities with a positive attitude. In other words, we keep our fears intact, while temporally diverting our perception of ourselves away from these fears. To explain, if we do sports to remain "fit", it does not imply, we are confident in our levels of attractiveness. We have a conditional confidence, meaning, that as long as we do sports, we are confident we will remain "fit", but once we stop, even for a few days, immediately, our insecurity, with respect to our appearance, would reemerge. It does not matter if we find such fears undesired, such as for example, if we think our society's code for staying "fit" or "thin", are "oppressive". Our somewhat "political" views belong in a conceptual realm, different from the one determining our interpersonal levels of confidence.

In short, the effects fear has on us are too broad to allow us to discuss it as a "subject". At best, we can broadly claim, fear is one of our main motivators, when determining our actions, without being able to determine any imminent "moral" quality about it. Fear is neither good, or bad. It is a fact of life, a feature of our existence as consciousnesses.

Still, when observed from such a broad perspective, we can isolate a few characteristics of fear, which differentiate it from our other experiences. First, obviously, fear is not an enjoyable sensation. To explain, while an adrenaline rush may be fun for a short while, once this "rush" perpetuates, once we begin to think of disturbing consequences, the "rush" loses its enjoyable features. Secondly, epistemologically, the reason we feel fear, is uniform. Fear is caused by our inability to know the future, while believing undesired events may transpire. To explain, regardless how terrible a forthcoming event may be, if it does not occupy our thoughts, either directly or indirectly, naturally, it will not invoke us with fears. While it is true, non-cognitive biological or chemical agents may invoke us with anxiety, to emerge as fear, our thoughts must yield some type of dreaded prediction, for this anxiety to trouble us, and if no such thought crosses our attention, we will not feel fear, but "merely discomfort". For example, if we feel we caught the flu, usually it will not invoke our fears, while if we feel uncomfortable bodily symptoms, which we never felt before, fear would strike us, as our minds would attempt to understand "what is happening to us".

And this is where science and knowledge come into play. Once we are able to identify the actual risk we are facing, our fears transform into problems, which our consciousness attempts to solve cognitively. Knowledge defuses our fears, transforming them from helplessness to choice. For example, if we feel something "funny" in our bodies, we feel the urge to see a doctor, not necessarily to "fix" our biology, but rather to understand what we are facing, what are its consequences, understandings, from which later, we can determine the manner by which we will deal with it, that is, if we choose to deal with it at all. This method of handling fear is applicable to issues, over which we have little choice as well, such as politics for example. By gaining knowledge (from the media, for example), with respect to contemporary events, we can dismiss the fears, with which such news items may invoke us.

This observation will serve as the introduction, as for the reason, why I write this text. To explain, in the information age, humanity in general, has been undergoing a relentless "fear treatment", of which no "party" is innocent. To explain, indeed, at no time in human history, did ruling parties "avoid" using the "fear tactic" to provoke their subject to support their goals, be it to go to war, to pay taxes, to go to church, and the likes. Nevertheless, as society became secular and democratic, it became morally polygenic, deeming our concepts of good and evil subjective, and hence, deeming passive methods of establishing authority, ineffective. In other words, to control us today, as a society, ruling parties can no longer utilize moral arguments to control us. We are too suspicious toward our ruling parties and legal authorities, to trust their moral judgment. To cause us to act in specific manners, we must be convinced there is real reason to fear the consequences of our disobedience. Still, to prevent us feeling sensations of resentment toward our regime, today's ruling parties, wisely choose not to be the parties we fear. They make sure we feel fear, but just as much, they make sure we do not believe they are the reason for our anxiety.

Moreover, they make sure we have no way to handle these fears, other than doing what they want us to. To clarify, for example, in the context of the threat of terrorism, the very principle, which defines terrorism, is our inability to predict when and where a terrorist attack will take place. The way terrorism "works", deems it impossible for a single citizen to avoid the risk of a terrorist attack. We could stay at home, locked away from the world, and a chemical or biological agent may harm us, and if that's not enough, there is the risk of an atomic bomb, from which almost nothing can protect us. The only way to transform the fear of a terrorist attack, into knowledge, meaning, an evaluable risk, is by doing pretty much what the united states has been doing over the last few years, namely, the war on terrorism. In many ways, it is as if terrorism has been "designed" to inflict us with obedience to the ruling parties.

Indeed, by now, this observation has become widespread, with a significant percentage of the American and European population endorsing this perspective. While arguably, this understanding did not reduce the western fear of terrorism, it has significantly tampered confidence in western governments, suggesting that the source of this global political issue, is not the governments themselves, as such transparency works against their interests and political stability. Still, this distrust went even higher in the search for "the guilty parties". Understanding no ruling party would want to "shoot itself in the foot", by being linked with a conspiracy, such as the one suggesting the September eleventh attack on the world trade center was an internal operation of the united states, many individuals have attempted to find a more plausible explanation for the actions of the united states, through suggestions of privately owned worldwide corporations, "pulling the strings" behind the war on terrorism. In the process, many have suggested the involvement of secret societies, with an agenda of a "new world order", according to which, all these events are leading humanity into a totalitarian oppressive vision.

I must admit, for a long time, I too was tempted to believe this is, in fact, the truth. Still, as I became aware of additional suggestions, becoming more mainstream as time progresses, and from the perspective of evaluating the issue of fear, I came across somewhat different conclusions, of which to tell the truth, I am unsure what to make, and so, I decided, it is best to publish my thoughts, to see what echoes, exposing these thoughts would bring.

The thing is, from the perspective of evaluating fear, something has changed. We are no longer given effective methods to ease our anxiety. To explain, when fighting terrorism, we are told that through a "war on terrorism", we can eliminate this threat, or at the very least, bring it to acceptable levels. Such a feasible option is hardly available when discussing the threat of the "new world order", as we know neither the extent, nor the actual identities, of the "string pullers", and actually, the scale of this conspiracy theory, suggests it is improbable we will ever know it. For the sake of accuracy, some individuals have suggested solutions for this disposition, via notions such as free energy for example, which I discussed in a previous post.

Nevertheless, this "solution" for such fears, comes hand in hand with an apocalyptic prophecy, with respect to the end of the year 2012. Moreover, it discusses the involvement of aliens, which promise us the technology, with which allegedly, we can resist the "new world order". In other words, the "essence" of this solution is so shrouded in mystery and imminent danger, that it can hardly serve as means to reduce our levels of anxiety and fear. Furthermore, the further we dive into this issue, the stranger and more intimidating it becomes. For example, while I would not be surprised if you never heard of it, I wonder if you ever checked the website of project Camelot. In it, you would hear of stories regarding 4 intelligent alien species, which allegedly, visit the earth, some of which are living among us, in the midst of our human societies. Many have suggested, many of our leaders, such as the bush family for example, are not human, but rather of an alien race, known as the "reptilians". I don't know about you, but between terrorists blowing up a bus station, and aliens wiping out the earth with superior technology, I'd take the terrorists. At least then we would know, with what we are dealing.

While this may be confusing, and a cause for concern, once we evaluate the historical events that have transpired since the second world war, a somewhat comforting conclusion emerges. Our contemporary history shows a pattern. The threats, with which we are forced to deal, are becoming more and more unsolvable. From a state where we had two superpowers, America and Russia, both governed by "transparent" common sense, we shifted to terrorism, which allegedly, does not follow any type of common sense, to secret societies, which are faceless, apathic, and obey no morality, and finally, to aliens, whose agenda or power we cannot even imagine. This all happened so soon, one after the other, that in no way could it be without design. Moreover, it came in a gradual manner. Only once one threat was beginning to show signs of being neutralized, did the next threat become apparent.

The 2012 threat is no different. It is only in the last twenty years that the whole Mayan calendar issue has become widely known, along with the ancient aliens "chariots of the gods" narrative, which is now peeking through mainstream documentary television series. No one wonders why such a global threat become common knowledge, only a few years before its realization, while there were thousands of years to prepare for it. In other words, in many ways, this threat seems as "designed", as the threat of terrorism seems "designed", perfectly timed to fill the gap of our lost faith in our war against terrorism. To explain, from a pan historic perspective, it seems as if the 2012 prophecies were "invented" to replace the war on terrorism.

The thing is, the alien, or ancient aliens narrative, is more than just hearsay. As I previously confessed, I myself have seen U F Os above my flat in Tel Aviv. I have seen flying objects, whose flying capabilities, exceed those of any airplane I know of. In other words, from my experience, I know, there is a grain of truth in all this. Therefore, personally, I feel somewhat obliged to consider, that quite like terrorism takes the lives of many individuals, there is more to the 2012 prophecies, and the involvement of alien races, ancient or otherwise, than mere hearsay. At the very least, I know, U F O sightings are not pranks made by charlatans. Still, naturally, there is a big difference between accepting U F O sightings are real, and accepting the rest of this narrative, as there is little in a few strange lights in the skies, to suggest such outrageous claims.

As I mentioned previously, it is somewhat difficult to analyze this narrative from the perspective of evaluating fear. What can we possibly do to transform this mysterious phenomenon, into knowledge, and risk assessment? We know so little about these alleged aliens, and there is nothing in the little information we manage to get, through channels such as project Camelot for example, to suggest this information is valid (and as a side note, I would like to make it clear, I mention project Camelot, simply because I am aware of it, and not because I believe it is unique, or that the notions its "researchers" propose are true). To clarify, according to the ancient aliens narrative, which is quite popular among the Camelot circle, these "aliens" never wanted us to know their true identity, and hence, we have a historic reason to doubt the validity of any information we may receive about them. To explain, just as the 2012 narrative can be correct in some sense, it can just as well be invented, by none other than these aliens. For example, you might not know this, but the ancient Mayan tablet, suggesting the apocalyptic prophecy of 2012, is broken, and it is hard to determine what it really means. Indeed, archeologists found another tablet in another Mayan temple, suggesting a similar interpretation. However, this tablet was found with the inscription on the back side of the tablet, suggesting that perhaps, its depiction is a "mistaken sketch", which the Mayans used, simply because they saw no reason to trash the raw material on which it is depicted, and actually, such material reuse is quite common among contemporary construction workers. Moreover, this depiction was found long after the first broken depiction, suggesting that perhaps, it was "planted", so to validate this narrative, which could have been invented not in ancient times, but rather in the last few years.

Still, such speculations cannot yield us knowledge, as we can doubt them, just as we can doubt the notions they doubt. Moreover, unlike the notions mentioned on project Camelot, I do not even claim to base these speculations on factual historical evidence. Therefore, inevitably, without further information, I find myself inclined to accept the possibility, the 2012 narrative, is possible, along with its doomsday apocalyptic extraterrestrial flavor, a possibility, which undoubtedly, when taken into serious consideration, is unsettling, to say the least.

I was thinking about this quite a lot, attempting to find a perspective, which could at the very least, reduce my own anxiety, after considering my past U F O sightings. I mean, to accept, that in less than a year, I would be either dead, or that my life could transform into a living inferno, just because I saw a few strange lights in the skies, is hardly reasonable. Therefore, I decided to dive deeper into the rabbit hole, aided by my certainties, meaning, the notions that must be true, regardless of what I personally believe is "the truth", namely, my conclusions, with respect to meta-metaphysics, which I compiled in the books "Delta Theory", and "Inconsistent".

To explain, usually, in my daily life, I try to avoid implementing my conclusions from these texts, as I strongly believe, taking my own thoughts too seriously, can easily result with a downward spiral to insanity. However, when confronted with little more than the hearsay of other individuals, I figured, between their possible madness, and my risk of insanity, I'd take my own. At least I know it's internals.

The idea of alien life is in no way "alien" to "Delta Theory". To clarify, according to "Delta Theory", all particles are equally alive, and hence, in many ways, according to "Delta Theory", there must be extraterrestrial life, simply because, particles exist in extraterrestrial environments. Indeed, this does not mean such life forms are more intelligent than we are, or that such life forms are even remotely similar to humans, while the narrative proposed by project Camelot, clearly does. Nevertheless, it surely is possible, especially when considering the principle of natural selection, namely, survival of those, most fitting to survive in a given environment. To explain, supposing in a given section of the universe, a certain race has the ability to reach and subdue all other races, then in all the regions where this race can reach, it will thrive, and therefore, we will find its offspring all over this region of space, which in our case, are humanoids.

Still, meta-metaphysically, other aspects of this collection of narratives, are problematic, especially when deciphered from the context of "inconsistent". The researchers, whose "research works" appear in circles associated with project Camelot, repeatedly mention several notions, all of which suggesting metaphysical inconsistencies. For example, there is what is called the "looking glass" project, which is an alleged man made device, based on back engineered alien technology, and supposedly, allows the possibility to view possible futures. The existence of such devices is mentioned repeatedly in these circles, along with their physical description, and according to which, they allegedly consists of several intersecting rings, a barrel of some type, Aragon gas, and perhaps other components. None of these descriptions mention physical explanations, or justifications, why and how such devices produce visions of possible futures, nor is it explained how a single limited perspective, which any individual who may use these devices, yield enough information, to deduce anything about such timelines, other than the belief such timelines exist. To explain, if a future viewing device would allow us to see our living room, 10 years into the future, this is all we would see. We would not see what is happening on the other side of the earth, nor would we even see what transpires in other rooms, suggesting such time traveling capabilities are quite impotent. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume, that through such devices, we could gain access to the world wide web, with which we could scope the happenings transpiring world widely. In addition, let us assume, that even though 10 years have passed, even today, we possess the technology to "jack into" the world wide web, in its incarnation in ten years.

In defense of project Camelot's "whistle blowers", we should note, that witnessing a possible future, is nothing like witnessing the actual future. To explain, a possible future is neither possible, nor the actual future. A possible future, when witnessed by a consciousness, becomes a part of the world, in which this consciousness dwells, and hence, it is not "possible", as it actually affects the consciousness observing it, meaning it is "actual", and it is neither the future, as it becomes an inherent part of the observer's present.

Still, there is more to it. "Inconsistent" repeatedly argued, that because metaphysical inconsistencies must both exist, and affect our reality, we simply cannot know the future. To explain, according to "inconsistent", the metaphysical potency of metaphysical inconsistencies cannot be limited by anything, other than by nullifying consistent elements from the world in itself, which inconsistent elements create, or what I otherwise called "the inconsistent paradox". The same applies to any prior knowledge we gained through whatever means, be it a device, a dream, or a "hunch". Therefore, by claiming such devices allow us to see possible futures, and not the actual future, meta-metaphysically, the claims such devices exist, remain reasonable, as by remaining merely "possible", such knowledge cannot impose limitations over inconsistent elements.

Still, essentially, in itself, there is nothing "impressive" about the existence of such devices. To explain, if indeed, such devices do not show us the future, essentially, they are worthless. They are no different from a sedative, allowing us to dream of worlds, different from the world during wakefulness, as there is nothing to "oblige" the actual world, from fulfilling the "prophecies" such devices inspire in us, and just as when a dream, or a wish for that matter, comes true, it does not mean, dreams show us the actual future, the same applies to "looking glass". It's simply not a time traveling device. At best, it's a device, which allows us to create predictions of the future, and we have that already. It is called "science".

Indeed, being this ambitious with respect to the validity of the information project Camelot's "whistle blowers" provide, we could choose to satisfy with this explanation. Nevertheless, some "whistle blowers" suggest, that by amplifying the "power" of these devices, the "looking glass" can open portals, which can allow real time traveling, meaning, the ability of particles, objects, or even human individuals, to traverse between time lines. By itself, one could easily think, there is no significant difference between viewing a possible future, and physically entering it. However, the differences are very significant. To explain, epistemologically, while viewing a possible future, our consciousness decodes inbound sensory information, and without a consciousness to evaluate it, metaphysically, nothing "special" transpires. To clarify, "information" has no mass, and neither does it fill a volume of space. Indeed, computers can store information in their data storages, and hence, require both a materialistic mass, and a volume of space to store it. Nevertheless, data is not knowledge, and without a consciousness to decode the semantic meaning of such data, essentially, there is no difference between information about a possible future, our high score in angry birds, or any other random ordered set of bits. In other words, knowledge of a possible future does not impose a physical challenge or impossibility.

However, traversing between time lines physically, is fundamentally different. When traversing between time lines physically, particles, which in one time line, once occupied a volume of space, are evicted from this time line, and emerge in a different time line. Therefore, at the very least, such traversals do not adhere to the standard flow of causality between physical elements, meaning, they contradict all the laws of mechanics we know currently. To explain, indeed, according to Albert Einstein's relativity theories, theoretically, time travel is possible. Nevertheless, again, it is possible only theoretically, and once we attempt to comprehend what such temporal traversals require, we soon understand that it is possible, only through dispositions, which potentially, are impossible in themselves. For example, one suggestion, as to how to realize a time machine, while relying on Einstein's theories, requires a device the length of the entire universe, and supposing space is infinite, such a device is impossible to build, as it would require an infinite amount of time to construct.

Arguably, not all time traveling devices, whose operation relies on Einstein's theories are that hard to construct. Moreover, it is quite possible, these theories are wrong, or partial. Nevertheless, there are a few meta-metaphysical principles, which "Delta Theory" mentioned, and which impose a tough challenge, on the feasibility of such time traveling devices. To clarify, according to "Delta Theory", or any other consistent metaphysical theory (if there are any other contenders to the title), particles do not merely occupy a volume of space. Metaphysically, particles are the volume of space they occupy. Therefore, if particles where to travel to another time line, it would imply, space itself "traveled" to another time line. However, being three dimensional entities, space, meaning, the three spatial dimensions, already exist in any timeline we can visit, suggesting that the very idea of particles traversing between time lines, is nonsensical.

Indeed, it is possible, the explanations "Delta Theory" proposes to our contemporary knowledge in physics is wrong, as it bases its arguments on common contemporary reports of empirical findings, which naturally, could be wrong. Nevertheless, we should remember, the same knowledge provides us with most of the technology we have today, while to the best of my knowledge, the claims of time traveling devices, yield little more than hearsay.

While this argument does not imply, the claims made in project Camelot circles are false, it does suggest the involvement of metaphysical inconsistencies of some sort. To clarify, as "inconsistent" repeatedly argued, metaphysical inconsistencies must exist in the world in itself, meaning, in the collection of elements, which produce our reality, and must affect our reality, be it in the external world, meaning, the physical world, or our internal mental worlds. Therefore, the fact time traveling both occurs, and is inflicting metaphysical inconsistencies, should not surprise us. Moreover, the fact a "device" can yield such metaphysical inconsistencies should not surprise us either, because as "inconsistent" argued, metaphysically, such "devices" are not that different from our brains. To explain, according to "inconsistent", the manner our brain utilizes the dimension of consciousness, causes metaphysical inconsistencies, as it allows our irrelevant mental worlds, to affect both one another, and the external world, while still performing its neural functions consistently. In other words, our brain functions both as a deterministic machine, and as an inflictor of metaphysical inconsistencies, and hence, it should not surprise us, if metaphysically, other devices possess somewhat similar capabilities.

Still, this is hardly the end of it. To explain, according to "Inconsistent", we "pay" for the metaphysical capabilities of our neural biology, through what we know as our sensations of pain. To clarify, sensations of pain breach the metaphysical independence between dimensions, inflicting relevancy between elements, which according to any consistent metaphysical explanation, should not affect one another. While partially, these metaphysical relations result with the undeniable relation between our animal body and our consciousness, it causes an additional "side effect", which "Inconsistent" referred to as "demonic influences", meaning effects on our existence as consciousnesses, which do not adhere to any type of causality. Therefore, it is plausible to assume, that if the technologies mentioned by project Camelot circle and affiliates actually exist, they inflict similar side effects, meaning, the increase the general level of demonic influences on our reality, allowing events to occur, without any consistent causative justification, on top of any other desired functionality.

At first glance, this claim seems very farfetched, as it by far easier to believe, the project Camelot circle consists of lunatics and charlatans. Nevertheless, again, from my own personal experience, I can validate, that not all of their claims are false, as I know that at the very least, U F Os exist, even if their "origins" are terrestrial. Moreover, we can spot implicit suggestions of metaphysical inconsistencies in other claims coming from the project Camelot circle. For example, one repeating claim among project Camelot's "researchers", is that we are being visited by aliens not merely from other planets, meaning, extraterrestrials, but by aliens from other, somehow "higher" dimensions, namely, extra dimensionals.

Metaphysically, such claims are even more "blunt" than the claims regarding time traveling. To clarify, not only do such claims breach the metaphysical independence between dimensions, allowing entities who exist in dimensions which should not affect us, it breaches the irrelevancy between worlds and their dimensional subsets as well. Moreover, implicitly coupling the term "higher" and "dimensions" together, suggests a hierarchy between dimensions, a possibility, which "Delta Theory" persistently argued against.

To summarize, ultimately, we are faced with two options. Either we believe the claims regarding 2012, and its extraterrestrial narrative are false, or we accept, that this alien intervention, is not alien at all, but rather "demonic", meaning, it is the result of metaphysically inconsistent elements affecting our reality, or alternatively, using the terminology of "Inconsistent", we are witnessing the real gods “in action”.

Still, we cannot make such outrageous accusations, as first, both "Delta Theory" and "Inconsistent" were not seriously reviewed by the scientific community, and secondly, we must remember, essentially, all the information we receive through project Camelot and its affiliates, is hearsay. Moreover, the levels of incompatibility between their claims and common knowledge is so vast, we simply have no way to reconcile such differences.

Nevertheless, there is one additional feature of their narrative, which suggests both a link to metaphysically inconsistent elements, as well as an explanation to the unfolding of future events, should they transpire in a manner even remotely similar to the one this narrative suggests. To clarify, if there is one motif, repeating in this narrative, it is the reinvention of the past. From the great pyramids, which once were but monuments of now dead formidable human civilizations, and which now represent an extraterrestrial link, to our technological level, whose peak once was to reach the moon, and which allegedly, now, allows us to travel in a speed faster than the speed of light, almost all the claims made by individuals affiliated with the project Camelot narratives, suggest the past we once thought we knew, was but a mirage. Repeatedly, new evidence becomes available "out of the blue", suggesting a historical record, fundamentally different from the one we were taught.

Instinctively, we are drawn to confront these claims on the factual data, attempting to determine their empirical validity. However, this perspective might be misleading. To clarify, according to "Inconsistent", metaphysical inconsistencies are both capable of changing our historical records of the past, as well as changing the present, and future events, so to reflect a consistent continuation of these historical records. In other words, even if we are to witness an "alien invasion", transpiring somewhere along the end of 2012, this in itself, does not prove, these "aliens", were not "invented", or even "created", only in the last fifty years or so, by the real gods. To clarify, because metaphysical inconsistencies can both affect our reality, while not adhering to any type of causality or regularity, we simply cannot determine if our historical evidence of our distant past has not been altered by metaphysical inconsistencies, and neither can we determine at what point in time did such alterations transpire. In many ways, it is no different from our inability to study our dreams using specimens from our dream worlds. To clarify, just as our dream worlds do not "linger" after we dream them, so to allow us to bring our scientific instrumentation into our dream worlds in a controlled manner, so does evidence of the past, not allow us to study the true past of elements, which have been altered by metaphysical inconsistencies, as metaphysical inconsistencies leave no causative consistent empirical trail we can analyze.

Considering this suggestion, we can finally confront the Camelot narrative, from the perspective of fear analysis. To clarify, while indeed, not all of the suggestions made by individuals participating, or associated, with project Camelot, necessarily inflict us with fear and anxiety (or perhaps, anticipation, which essentially, is not that different), both their intimidating and non-intimidating suggestions, direct us to one direction, namely, repressing our cognitive capabilities and inclination to progress technologically, as well as suppressing our rationality in favor of irrational, or alternatively, demonic perspectives.

In what way? Well, while indeed, project Camelot researchers tell us of things we did not know of before, such as alleged technologies humanity already developed (such as superluminal vehicles, star gates, and time machines), it speaks nothing of the logic behind the physics such technologies utilize. Repeatedly, whenever a project Camelot "researcher" discusses these alleged apparatuses, the conversation immediately shifts to physical descriptions of these devices, undermining the fact, that without the physics behind them, they are no different from any Hollywood prop. Actually, this notion is practically spitted out on project Camelot's portal, and I quote "What Camelot is about is the investigation into the mysteries that surround us". To explain, science is not about mystery. Science, technology, and knowledge are the opposite of mystery, transforming what was once a disturbing empirical fact, to opportunities we can exploit to our advantage.

Project Camelot "researchers" suggest nothing of the sort. On the contrary, whenever project Camelot "researchers" discuss what it is we should and shouldn't do, almost unanimously, all researchers argue against our contemporary technologies, suggesting we should divert our attentions to wishful thinking, if not utterly believing our make belief fantasies, while at the same time, not offering any working blueprints for truly utilizable, and financially reasonable alternatives to replace our existing technological solutions. To clarify, while obviously, had our technologies where all "green" to begin with, utilizing "green" technologies would have been a reasonable choice, but as things stand, financially, for middle class (or less) individuals, any practical "planet friendly" complete solution to their technological necessities, is unsustainable. Therefore, the only "practical" solutions offered by project Camelot, involve spirituality, about which we quite simply do not know shit, what makes it "tick", and more importantly, why, and how. In many ways, their suggestions are not any different from suggestions made in text written thousands of years ago, by individuals, who project Camelot's "researchers" themselves, claim were enslaved by those who preached the messages these ancient texts suggest.

To summarize, subliminally, the 2012 narratives, ancient aliens theories, as well as the narratives suggested by project Camelot "researchers" and "whistle blowers" in general, attempt to persuade us to shift away from our scientific and technologically focused perspectives, and into perspectives, typical to ancient theocratic times, times when we used to explain the inexplicable as magical, supernatural, or superhuman. To clarify, while indeed, the word "technology", is quite popular in these suggested narratives, a meta-metaphysical analysis shows us, the use of such terminology is misplaced. To explain, etymologically, the term "technology", usually refers to tools, which we can build, and which we can put to desired purpose. Moreover, implicitly, the term "technology", suggests reference to objects, which work mechanically. In contrast, the "technology", to which project Camelot "researchers" refer, does not necessarily satisfy this connotation. For example, if we refer to a "looking glass" device, it’s unclear what is its purpose, as it is unclear what exactly it produces. Is it true visions of the future, or is it merely hallucinations? Moreover, again, without a rational consistent explanation, with respect to the physical laws "looking glass" devices exploit, it is hard to say whether these devices are "mechanical", and not "magical objects", somehow anchored in a structure made of rings, barrels, and gas. To explain, from the reports project Camelot's "researchers" provided, it is impossible to determine what is the function of these devices, and what aspects of the functionality of such devices, is determined by the alleged, yet unexplained natural phenomena, referred to as "wormholes". Indeed, the notion of "wormholes" exists in the realm of contemporary physics. Nevertheless, the existence of these "wormholes" is strictly theoretical, meaning, there is no empirical data to validate such "wormholes" actually exist in contemporary mainstream physics, and currently, theoretical physics use this term merely to refer to a hypothetical explanations, which currently, are too vague to yield instrumental applications.

Naturally, it is possible, we have made a lot of progress, outside the mainstream scientific and academic establishments. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the findings project Camelot's "researchers" exposed to prove it, and without such proof, essentially, even if such devices exist, there is nothing to differentiate them from the staff of Moses, which allegedly, could break the ocean in two. In other words, regardless of the validity of the claims made by project Camelot's "researchers", for all intended purposes, the reports they provide do not speak of technology, but rather of magic. Alternatively, we could claim, that scientifically, "the looking glass", is no different from the witch's mirror in "snow white". It is an object from a story, or alternatively, from a narrative. It is not "technology".

Indeed, project Camelot's "researchers", repeatedly claim, they are no physicists, which innocently, we could claim, attests to their honesty, and humility. However, again, because the differences between the "technology" of which they speak, and the technology we know, is so vast, without understanding the physics behind these alleged devices, their use of the term "technology", is misleading. Moreover, repeatedly, project Camelot "researchers" mention, that these alleged man made technologies, so many years ahead of main stream science, are "nothing" compared to the technologies our extraterrestrial visitors possess, and considering our last argument, it is even harder to claim it is "technology". Quite frankly, it is impossible to determine anything about it, and the safest description should use the word "magic", until better understanding of their mechanics is provided.

To summarize, it appears "the gods" are at it again. No, I am not referring to the real gods, or alternatively, the inconsistent elements "Inconsistent" discussed, but rather to the fantastic deity gods, of which our religions and mythologies speak. Actually, considering our technological age, dominated by science and human ingenuity, the fantastic 2012 narrative, along with the extraterrestrial / extra dimensional involvement, is not that surprising. To explain, today, we can no longer accept the existence of magic, and neither would we agree to follow and obey "the divine". We worship technology, and hence, a technological mythology has been provided to us, in an attempt to capture our minds, and strike fear, anxiety, and admiration in our hearts, with a clear and obvious purpose, namely, submission to the unknown. It does not matter if we submit to true blood aliens, to spiritual teachers, or to our governments, the purpose of all is the same.

Moreover, as a side effect of our meta-metaphysical analysis, miraculously, this conclusion is true, regardless of what actually is "the truth". To clarify, if we believe our government, our path of submission is easy to spot, and all documented. If we follow the "spirituality" associated with project Camelot "researchers", we are swept away from our technological pursuit, which promised us control over our reality, and into the hands of uncertainties and unsubstantiated "spiritual teachings". Considering the extraterrestrial narrative, it does not matter if we become allies with some extraterrestrial race. We will not be their equals, and our "friendship" with such allies, will do nothing to change our submissive disposition. To clarify, it is obvious, whoever possesses such superior technologies, could have wiped us clean, just as it could have shared "the whole truth" with us as equals, but instead, it chose the path of mystery and superiority, which inevitably, can result with nothing but submission.

Moreover, it does not matter if aliens will one day appear above our cities, in a manner not so different from the manner appearing in the Hollywood movie "Independence Day", or if such an event will never transpire, as it serves the same purpose, namely, submission to the unknown, without the ability to resist, as we would not know either who is governing us, or what is its limit of technological potency. Furthermore, it would be completely unsurprising, if in the end, we would learn, we do have completely man made flying saucers, and the whole alien narrative, as well as the hiding of such technologies, was done with the purpose of defeating our spirits, with respect to technological progress, understanding every single thing we can think of, has been done before, and with great success.

Still, there is one meta-metaphysical "red herring", to which we should pay attention, and I am referring to metaphysically inconsistent elements, and their effects over our reality. None of the narratives, regardless if they are related with the 2012 prophecies, ancient aliens, spirituality, or "contemporary aliens", discuss these, while according to the rigorous arguments of "inconsistent", both must exist, and offer a new type of technologies, which are both beyond our wildest dreams, and impose little meta-metaphysical challenges. For some reason, yours truly, the limited, backward technologically individual, could think of technologies beyond our wildest dreams, which none of project Camelot's "researchers", contemporary science, or our ancient mythologies, even mentioned. Is this because these technologies are a load of bullocks, or is it because, it is the only segment of this entire debate, which is not a load of bullocks?

Obviously, I am too biased to decide.