Problems with Whistleblowers and Channelers

It is an exciting time, now, as the dollar is in freefall, here in the early winter of 2009, and nobody wants to talk about the obvious: the dollar is being moved aside so that the Amero can be introduced. The North American Union has been voted in by the only voters that matter: those who buy votes in all three nation's capitals. It is a time when a war is bogged down, as U.S. military might runs into the inherent manpower/force dilution of guerilla war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The religious right played its hand and, with "Divine" backing handed the U.S. one of the most debauched, corrupt administrations imaginable, with rampant corporate welfare and deficit spending, and lax regulation. This was voted for by both Democrats and Republicans, over every Administration since the Carter years, that led to the financial collapse.

The excitement is marked by a declining confidence in both institutions and leaders. With this, formerly "underground" literature and video productions, many showing the seamy underside of government, are ever more popular. Many deal with or claim to channel otherworldly beings, from archangels to space aliens. With our own leaders quite unable to even protect the modest standard-of-living improvements of the 1970's, it stands to reason that we would look for other voices of authority. So, we turn to whistleblowers, who worked, or claimed to have worked, inside an often self-servingly secretive government and to channelers, who serve as intermediaries between the curious and disillusioned and the transcendantal authority of beings with whom we ordinarily do not receive communication.

But, as easy as this substitution of authoritative sources may be, is it valid? Are the whistleblowers and / or channels authentic? Is their message reliable or factual? I'll suggest, briefly, a technique for weighing this for yourself. Dr. Dan Burisch is a biologist, who claims to have worked with a secret government project. His four-part interview on Project Camelot begins here: Burisch Project Camelot interview - Part I.

Burisch claims an extraordinary knowledge of different ET races and timelines of human history. Of course, most of us have no way, through our direct experiences, to verify any of it. That said, we can see if his "history" of humanity's future is plausible. He states that the beings whom UFO contactees or experiencers call "Nordics" are really humanity from the future, i.e., this humanity, from this world, thousands of years ahead from now. Actually, looking at a Western Civilization intent upon importing hordes of high-birthrate non-whites, who have stripped their lands of all but subsistence capability, and then have been lured here by discriminatory anti-White immigration regulations, this seems wholly impossible. While Nordic humans are only about 5% of the 8% who are White, they are shown in all kinds of plots in the mass brainwashing that masquerades as entertainment as non-sustainable. Nubile exogamy is rampant. Few blonde ladies think they "look right" without a Latin or Negroid boyfriend, which later translates into a husband. Blond men are shown to be bullies, terrorists, wimps, or some horrid combination of all three, and the "plot" to many a police drama is the Semitic, Latin, or part Amerindian protagonist's killing of the Evil Blond Man, while mating with the prize, the blonde woman. Nothing seems less likely than Burisch's projection.

So, to conclude on Burisch's credibility, while we can't check most of it, as it is all about off-world events and secret government machinations, what we can check doesn't add up. The other factor which doesn't add up is this: if Burisch really is a highly-experienced scientist, who was once an insider to intelligence community skullduggery, why do they allow him to remain active as a whistleblower, when so many others, such as Karen Silkwood, perished under suspicious circumstances?

Critical thinking does not mean that we assume a negative motive for all YouTube "experts". Many may really believe what they are telling us. Others may not know the difference between what they, with limited or incorrect knowledge, "know" and what they are purportedly "channeling" from a transcendental or higher-than-human source.

A popular book of the Nineties comes to mind, Bringers of the Dawn by Barbara Marciniak. Her Pleiadian sources speak in many generalities through her which feel good and make the reader think. The book is well-written, yet it has many errors that it seems unlikely that a wise and benevolent ET would make. Often, New Age writers become so passionate in putting forth their worldview that this underlying purpose comes through, even when the writer is trying to put her self, her own perceptions, aside in order to channel a higher intelligence. What readers end up with is probably a blend of both and this is true with most channelers.

On page 108, Marciniak writes, "There are central suns within your galactic system and a central sun within this universe. The Mayans named this central sun Alcyone. Others know it by other names. The sun has light and light has information. To make this very simplistic, members of the Family of Light come from a place that is the central storehouse of information for the universe."

To begin with, Alcyone is Greek, a reference to one of the "Seven Sisters" of the Pleiades, not Mayan. It could be that the anti-Western, anti-European, and anti-White assumptions made by so many New Agers, like the lady who asked me, in all sincerity, when speaking about Iceland, "So, who were the indigenous people there?" was that, if it made sense or was spiritual, the concept could not only not have a Western origin, but could not even have a Western description.

A second fallacy (and this is just one paragraph: one could find many more throughout) is the assumption that Alcyone is somehow "central" to our universe, or in some way synonymous to the "Great Attractor" of which astronomy now speaks, to which our Teutonic ancestors referred as the Black Sun, the sun which shone out spiritual "light" rather than that which is visible.

So, how much of Marciniak's "Pleiadian" should we believe? Should we trust the realtors' description of the plumbing when we see the home with nothing connected, when he just told us that there was a small electric bill and we find a copy of it and learn that it was sizeable? Does not one misrepresentation make us doubt to what extent she or any other "channel" can serve as our guru through a supposedly interposing higher being? The problem with these questions is that we have no way to know who much is valid information, but we can always, with these sorts of accounts, use our knowledge of the known, the factual bedrock, to weigh the validity of the writer.

Another instance came to me recently in an amusing video where this fellow claimed to be an actual ET. ET Delivers Sermon of Doom & Gloom (with today's currently promoted deathwish apocalyptic subtext date implied) The unidentified speaker claims to be "Swiss" in his human face. Yet, he speaks with neither French, German, Italian, nor Romani accent, but rather the flat American intonation of someone from the Midwest.

Before delivering a mindless Christian sermon, such as you could hear from any Baptist pulpit, he opens with an obvious falsehood that any advanced ET would know as such and never say. He says that humans use "only 9% of your brains". Back in Nineteenth-to-Twentieth turn-of-the-century neuroscience, this was the conclusion, but modern neuroscience, using such techniques as glucose-uptake MRI studies, has long known that there are times when a person can be firing a very large number of synapses at once, over 80%. This is something an uninformed and uneducated person is saying, not an ET. Also, if he is an ET, why does he need to use the "reverb" amplifier to try to sound more Hollywood-ethereal as in an old B movie? Yet, a very bright, educated person sent it to me with the note, "Looks like a set up, but an interesting one," when it was openly, from the first statements, false.

This is where our critical thinking skills can prevent our wasting time figuring out charlatans. We can actively, aggressively test and weigh what is valid by eliminating what is unreliable due to open falsehood, as in the "Swiss" evangelist's YouTube clip, or what may be sincere, but sincerely misinformed by the author's own biases, as in Marciniak's work.

The real reward of being a critical thinker is that, after you have sorted out for the openly false, the ridiculously mis-stated, the innumerate, the illiterate, or the simply misinformed, you will be left with a net full of real channelings, real, dependable reports of shadow government machinations. The world does not become less mysterious or interesting when you see the zipper on the monster suit: it becomes far more interesting because the next bête noir may be the real thing.

We encourage you to benefit from and copy this work. Under no circumstances should this ancient sacred work of oral tradition be altered, plagarized or with "expert" arrogance re-interpreted. Our Folk traditions are older than you are and, unlike today's media, do not contain distortions to fit current alien beliefs. If they don't fit you, respect our Folk and our Gods enough to leave them alone and find another theology that is your own!

Please remember that we are not universalists and do not believe that the principles contained herein would be of benefit to "all mankind."
We trust the ingenuity and resourcefulness of other peoples to come up with their own evolutionary strategies.
Ours assumes self-control, limiting one's consumption of natural resources and production of offspring, not overrunning and exhausting the earth, and other ethics of a distinctly North European flavor. This work should certainly be shared with other North Europeans.
All we ask is this: if you copy this work, have the honor to use it whole, as this is more representative of the greater body of spiritual writings from which it is excerpted and will avoid the taking of parts out of context.

The Gambanreiði Statement, printed since 1979

and offered as an on-line journal at

Comments are encouraged and welcomed.

Your input and submissions are important to us.

History & Perspective regarding this Gambanreiði Statement