Why did the ‘Deep State’ or gatekeepers permit the creation of the documentary ‘Age of Disclosure’? Reports suggest that this upcoming film has the potential to significantly raise awareness of its subject in mainstream discussions. Featuring notable figures such as military officials and Congress members, I suspect it might ultimately fall flat, but there’s always a chance it could resonate with a broader audience and finally spark interest in this topic. So, what prompted the often-criticized ‘Deep State’ to allow this project?
For many years, those in power have successfully kept this subject shrouded in secrecy, ridicule, and stigma—a strategy that has worked well over time. Yet now, it seems a group of unconventional filmmakers has managed to attract influential voices from the military and Congress to discuss a highly classified issue. Why would this be permitted at all? It would have been relatively easy for the powers that be to silence these individuals who typically defer to ‘national security’ concerns.
This situation presents a few possibilities:
1) The gatekeepers may believe the documentary’s content lacks the substance to capture the interest of those outside the UFO community. Essentially, the buzz created around it could be just that—mere noise.
2) It’s possible that the documentary has received approval from those in control, meaning only information that they deem acceptable has been included. Time will tell if it has any genuine impact.
Your points about the documentary “Age of Disclosure” definitely highlight some interesting angles regarding the ongoing conversation around UFOs and government transparency. It’s true that for years, the narrative around these topics has been heavily influenced by what some might call the “gatekeepers” of information. Here are a couple of thoughts in response to your observations:
Managed Disclosure: The idea that the “Deep State” or relevant authorities might allow such a documentary to proceed could relate to a strategy of “controlled disclosure.” By selectively permitting certain narratives to enter the public sphere, those in power can manage the conversation around a subject that has historically been shrouded in mystery. This could be a way to gradually acclimate the public to this information, possibly preparing them for more significant revelations in the future.
Changing Perceptions: It’s also worth considering that societal attitudes towards topics like UFOs and government secrecy are shifting. With a surge of interest from various sectors—media, academia, and the general public—the gatekeepers might see this as an opportunity to pivot the narrative from secrecy to one of transparency. If the documentary is perceived as lacking substance or relevance, it could serve as a “safe” outlet for these discussions without posing a significant threat to established powers.
Influence of Key Figures: The presence of high-profile names can dramatically influence public perception. Even if the content is more benign than provocative, just having respected figures in the conversation can lend credibility to the subject. This might be a calculated move by the gatekeepers to ease the transition into more open discussions without creating a backlash.
Ultimately, whether “Age of Disclosure” becomes a tipping point or remains under the radar will depend on how effectively it resonates with a broad audience. The interplay between public interest, the actions of influential figures, and the strategies of those in power will surely shape the impact of this documentary.