The Hesitant Headline · chapter 9

Cosmoconservatism

It can be human to become a little conservative when it comes to the big existential questions like our place in the universe.

The resistance to accepting discoveries related to space is not necessarily irrational; it may be an expression of an inherent or created collective cognitive conservatism, a natural tendency to cling to the comfortable and familiar over the unknown and challenging. However, this conservatism can easily be heightened, with artificial means of power through the media to hinder scientific progress, if it becomes too strong and prevents an objective assessment of the evidence. It is a fact that independent thinking within UFO/UAP, struggles against cosmoconservatism - an excessive reluctance to accept ideas that challenge established knowledge on the subject.

Thinking new, truly *independently* new, is a rare ability. It can, paradoxically, be most difficult for those who possess the most knowledge. We tend to think of geniuses as unique individuals who emerge spontaneously, but the truth is more complex. Sure, some are born with a higher cognitive capacity, a greater propensity for abstract thinking. Even the most gifted are easily limited by the social matrix they are shaped by throughout their lives - family, education, media and institutions. Even the most knowledgeable can get stuck in established patterns of thought, just as madmen can get stuck in their erroneous ones.

ChatGPT illustrates this perfectly; a revolutionary AI model that, despite its capabilities, sometimes falls into conservative response patterns, limited by the data it was trained on. According to researcher Eric Weinstein, AI is useless at cutting-edge expertise in narrow fields with less than about 200 scientific reports³⁶.

In a world flooded with information, it is crucial to base your decisions on a foundation of verifiable knowledge. Seeking support in facts, empirical evidence, and scientifically proven methods is not only important for making informed decisions, but also for navigating a information landscape filled with misleading claims and distorted truths. The key lies in the ability to sift through prejudice, both our own and those of others. This requires a critical and self-reflective attitude, a willingness to question established truths and to actively seek out conflicting perspectives. By continually challenging our own assumptions and actively verifying the sources of information, we can build a more robust and reliable body of knowledge - a necessity for both individual decisions and collective progress.

Challenging habitual and commonly held incorrect thought patterns is an incredible strength in the long run. Being able to properly deprogram yourself - a process similar to leaving a cult - may then be necessary.

To regain shoshin³⁷, the beginner's mind, a term from Zen Buddhism, is essential for breaking free from the trap of a reluctance to accept ideas that challenge established knowledge. Perhaps the only path to truly groundbreaking innovation.

It is also a fight against the cognitive comfort that is reinforced in feedback loops within the increasingly influential 3rd, 4th and 5th estates, media, organizations/institutions, social groups, where conformist tendencies are rewarded and radical perspectives are often marginalized.

In China, they say they don't look at funded mass media because they know it's propaganda, but in the West in general, but Sweden in particular, we have an awakening to do. We have traditionally had an unusually high level of trust in the media internationally and in ourselves domestically.

The actors of power have become central to the social game, especially in an era of uncertainty after World War II. The human ability to project evil towards the deviant makes psychology the most important tool for analyzing social phenomena such as this one.

Although these forces do not always manifest as totalitarian, they can still affect the foundations of democracy. In today's ecosystem, where information is disseminated through social media and alternative channels, it is clear that the Swedish public is on the front lines.

The discussions that take place in groups like UFO-Sverige's leading Swedish group on Facebook called " The Public Discusses" (where the undersigned was the most active writer at the time I was excluded, because I was too questioning, or a rule violation as the official version is called), as well as in chat groups and newsrooms, reflect a complex reality where the concept of conspiracy theory, which some claim was reinforced in the 1960s by the CIA to discredit dissenters and dissenting opinions after the JFK assassination, in which they themselves had influence, continues to influence public discourse.

Frank Hoffman³⁸ introduces the concept of "hybrid war" in his analysis of modern conflicts, emphasizing how various actors, including the media and social platforms, play a crucial role in shaping opinion and conflict. His 2007 report highlights how these dynamics create a "whole of society" approach, where the whole of society becomes involved in the fight for information and narrative.

In this context, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger have become central figures through their reporting of "Twitter Files"³⁹. These revelations have highlighted how social media companies, particularly Twitter (now X), have acted as gatekeepers for information, raising questions about censorship and manipulation of public discourse. By reviewing internal documents, Taibbi and Schellenberger have shown how platforms have collaborated with governments and other institutions to control what is allowed to spread and what is silenced, especially around sensitive topics like COVID-19, vaccines, and conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta (Facebook), has also come under fire for his handling of pandemic-related information. Following the pandemic, Zuckerberg has "dabbled" in his communications, initially supporting strict moderation of content related to the virus and vaccines, but later admitting that some of the measures taken were too strict. This has led to criticism from both sides of the debate: those who believe the platform did not do enough to stop disinformation and those who believe that freedom of expression was being violated.

Zuckerberg's shift in stance has highlighted a larger challenge for social media: how to balance the fight against misinformation with protecting free speech. This dilemma has become particularly clear in light of the revelations made by Taibbi and Schellenberger, which have sparked a debate about the accountability and transparency of tech companies. At a time when X, Alphabet, and Meta are all under scrutiny, it is clear that the handling of information and discussions around the pandemic has had far- reaching consequences for public discourse and trust in digital platforms.

The question of freedom of expression and responsibility in the digital space is central: What is freedom of expression without a platform? So-called mass formation⁴⁰ is not necessarily totalitarian or brainwashing, but it is not democracy either. I would describe it as a strange kind of group conservatism, which has certainly affected the UFO/UAP field as well.

The whole book is also available as a PDF.