I know, the title reads very strange, and it might be a long shot, but that's what I was thinking ...
I am currently reading Vallee's "Passport to Magonia", which mainly states that UFOs cannot be "nuts and bolts" objects, but are probably some interdimensional projection manipulated by a terrestrian race from another dimension. I think, that is what Keel is saying as well, although I haven't read his books yet.
Vallee compares the UFO phenomenon with the fairy tales of the Middle Ages, with the stories of elves, with apparitions of the type of Madonnas etc. He puts the whole phenomenon into a cultural context, as the content of these interdimensional projections seem to predate the actual social, cultural and technological developments.
In the chapter "DAEMONIALITAS" he describes UFO abductions with an explicit sexual context, the mating of an "alien" with a human to produce "offsprings" (see the case of Villas-Boas in Brazil). He describes this sexual context as being partly responsible for the survival of this tradition:
He then goes on to quote Wentz (The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries, its Psychological Origin and Nature) who tells the following story:
He cites another case, this time from sources within the Catholic Church, a certain Fr. Ludovicus Maria Sinistrari de Ameno in his book "De Demonialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis". Sinistrari was the preeminent scholar on human psychology and religious law to serve in the seventeenth century. I won't go into details, suffice it to say, that an "entity" tried in vain to seduce a young married woman for years.
Sinistraris main question - as he was part of the Inquisition - was how to judge these cases by religious law. I won't go further into the discussion of these questions, as to how these acts were physically possible and what sin is committed by those who engage in such an intercourse. It seems to Sinistrari to be a fact that such intercourse can produce children. Vallee cites a whole paragraph of Sinistraris work in his book, which I would like to cite in full (emphasize mine):
Valle then goes on to comment the above passage as follows:
The description of this "other race, nonhuman, different in physical nature, but biologically compatible with us" exactly fits the description of psychopaths. So I wonder, if there is not a genetic agenda in the UFO/ cultural control mechanism to subjugate humankind. The Antichrist is thus not a single entity, who at some stage rises from hell to bring death and destruction to our world. It is maybe much more cunning, to plant the seed of destruction within a proportion of the human population itself, so that finally the world will succumb not through direct intervention from "outside" but slowly from within.
Seems like an awful long shot to me, and I may be waaaaay off here, but thought I would toss that into the discussion. These thoughts are not yet fully thought through, and maybe you can point out to me what errors of reasoning I have committed.
I am currently reading Vallee's "Passport to Magonia", which mainly states that UFOs cannot be "nuts and bolts" objects, but are probably some interdimensional projection manipulated by a terrestrian race from another dimension. I think, that is what Keel is saying as well, although I haven't read his books yet.
Vallee compares the UFO phenomenon with the fairy tales of the Middle Ages, with the stories of elves, with apparitions of the type of Madonnas etc. He puts the whole phenomenon into a cultural context, as the content of these interdimensional projections seem to predate the actual social, cultural and technological developments.
In the chapter "DAEMONIALITAS" he describes UFO abductions with an explicit sexual context, the mating of an "alien" with a human to produce "offsprings" (see the case of Villas-Boas in Brazil). He describes this sexual context as being partly responsible for the survival of this tradition:
Without the sexual context—without the stories of changelings, human midwives, intermarriage with the Gentry, of which we never hear in modern fairy tales—it is doubtful that the tradition about fairies would have survived through the ages. Nor is that true only of fairies: the most remarkable cases of sexual contact with nonhumans are not found in spicy saucer books, nor in fairy legends; they rest, safely stored away, in the archives of the Catholic Church. To find them, one must first learn Latin and gain entrance into the few libraries where these unique records are preserved. But the accounts one finds there make the Villas-Boas case pale by comparison [...]
He then goes on to quote Wentz (The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries, its Psychological Origin and Nature) who tells the following story:
My grandmother Catherine Mac Innis used to tell about a man named Laughlin, whom she knew, being in love with a fairy-woman.
The fairy-woman made it a point to see Laughlin every night, and he being worn out with her began to fear her. Things got so bad at last that he decided to go to America to escape the fairy-woman. As soon as the plan was fixed and he was about to emigrate, women who were milking at sunset out in the meadows heard very audibly the fairy-woman singing this song:
What will the brown-haired woman do
When Lachie is on the billows?
Lachie emigrated to Cape Breton, landing at Pictu, Nova Scotia; and in his first letter home to his friends he stated that the same fairy-woman was haunting him there in America.
[...]
To discover a tale so rare and curious as this ... is certainly of all our evidence highly interesting. And aside from its high literary value, it proves conclusively that the fairy-women who entice mortals to their love in modern times are much the same, if not the same, as the succubi of middleage mystics.
He cites another case, this time from sources within the Catholic Church, a certain Fr. Ludovicus Maria Sinistrari de Ameno in his book "De Demonialitate, et Incubis, et Succubis". Sinistrari was the preeminent scholar on human psychology and religious law to serve in the seventeenth century. I won't go into details, suffice it to say, that an "entity" tried in vain to seduce a young married woman for years.
Sinistraris main question - as he was part of the Inquisition - was how to judge these cases by religious law. I won't go further into the discussion of these questions, as to how these acts were physically possible and what sin is committed by those who engage in such an intercourse. It seems to Sinistrari to be a fact that such intercourse can produce children. Vallee cites a whole paragraph of Sinistraris work in his book, which I would like to cite in full (emphasize mine):
To theologians and philosophers, it is a fact, that from the copulation of humans (man or woman) with the demon, human beings are sometimes born. It is by this process that Antichrist must be born, according to a number of doctors: Bellarmin, Suarez, Maluenda, etc. Besides, they observe that as the result of a quite natural cause, the children generated in this manner by the incubi are tall, very strong, very daring, very magnificent and very wicked ....
Maluenda confirms what has been said above, proving by the testimony of various classical authors that it is to such unions that the following owe their birth:
- Romulus and Remus, according to Livy and Plutarch
- Servius-Tullius, sixth king of the Romans, according to Denys of Halicarnassus and Pliny
- Plato the philosopher, according to Diogenes Laertius and St. Jerome
- Alexander the Great, according to Plutarch and Quinte-Curce
- Seleucus, king of Syria, according to Justin and Applian
- Scipio the African, according to Livy
- The Emperor Caesar Augustus, according to Suetonius
- Aristomenes of Messenia, the illustrious Greek general, according to Strabo and Pausanias
Let us add the English Merlin or Melchin, born of an incubus and a nun, the daughter of Charlemagne. And finally, as writes Cocleus, quoted by Maluenda "the damned heresiarch whose name is Martin Luther".
[...]
However, in spite of all the respect I owe so many great doctors, I do not see how their opinion can stand examination. Indeed, as Pererius observes very well in Commentary on Genesis, Chapter Six, all the strength, all the power of the human sperm, comes from spirits that evaporate and vanish as soon as they issue from the genital cavities where they were warmly stored. The physicians agree on this. Therefore, it is not possible for the demon to keep the sperm he has received in a sufficient state of integrity to produce generation; for, no matter what the vessel where he could attempt to keep it is, this vessel would have to have a temperature equal to the natural temperature of human genital organs, which is found nowhere but in those same organs. Now, in a vessel where the warmth is not natural, but artificial, spirits are resolved, and no generation is possible. A second objection is that generation is a vital act through which man, from his own substance, introduces sperm through the
use of natural organs, into a place proper for generation. To the contrary, in the special case we are now considering, the introduction of the sperm cannot be a vital act of the generating man, since it is not by him that it is introduced into the matrix. And, for the same reason, it cannot be said that the man to whom the sperm belonged has engendered the fetus that is procreated. Neither can we consider the incubus as the father, since the sperm is not of his own substance. Thus here is a child who is born and has no father — which is absurd. Third objection: when the father engenders naturally, there is a concourse of two causalities: a material one, for he provides the sperm that is the material of generation; and an efficient one, for he is the main agent in the generation, according to the common opinion of philosophers. But, in our case, the man who does nothing but provide the sperm simply gives material, without any action tending toward generation. Therefore he could not be regarded as the child's father, and this is contrary to the notion that the child engendered by an incubus is not his child, but the child of the man whose sperm was borrowed by the incubus ...
We also read in the Scriptures (Genesis 6:4) that giants were born as a result of intercourse between the sons of God and the daughters of Man: this is the very letter of the sacred text. Now, these giants were men of tall stature, as it is said in Baruch 3:26, and far superior to other men. Besides their monstrous size, they called attention by their strength, their plunders, their tyranny. And it is to the crimes of these giants that we must attribute the main and primary cause of the Flood, according to Cornelius a Lapide in his Commentary on Genesis.
Some state that under the name of sons of God we must understand the sons of Seth, and, under that of daughters of men, the daughters of Cain, because the former practiced piety, religion, and all other virtues while the latter, the children of Cain, did exactly the opposite. But, with all the respect we owe Chrysostom, Cyril, and others who share this view, it will be recognized it is in disagreement with the obvious meaning of the text. What do the Scriptures say? That from the conjunction of the above were born men of monstrous corporeal proportions. Therefore, these giants did not exist previously, and if their birth was the result of that union, it is not admissible to attribute it to the intercourse between the sons of
Seth and the daughters of Cain who, of ordinary size themselves, could have children only of ordinary size.
Consequently, if the intercourse in question has given birth to beings of monstrous proportions, we must see there not the ordinary intercourse of men with women but the operation of the incubi who, owing to their nature, can very well be called sons of God. This opinion is that of the Platonist philosophers and of Francois George of Venice, and it is not in contradiction with that of Josephus the historian, Philo, St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, according to whom these incubi could be angels who had allowed themselves to commit the sin of luxury with women.
Indeed, as we shall show, there is nothing there but a single opinion under a double appearance.
Valle then goes on to comment the above passage as follows:
What we have here is a complete theory of contact between our race and another race, nonhuman, different in physical nature, but biologically compatible with us. Angels, demons, fairies, creatures from heaven, hell, or Magonia: they inspire our strangest dreams, shape our destinies, steal our desires ... But who are they?
The description of this "other race, nonhuman, different in physical nature, but biologically compatible with us" exactly fits the description of psychopaths. So I wonder, if there is not a genetic agenda in the UFO/ cultural control mechanism to subjugate humankind. The Antichrist is thus not a single entity, who at some stage rises from hell to bring death and destruction to our world. It is maybe much more cunning, to plant the seed of destruction within a proportion of the human population itself, so that finally the world will succumb not through direct intervention from "outside" but slowly from within.
Seems like an awful long shot to me, and I may be waaaaay off here, but thought I would toss that into the discussion. These thoughts are not yet fully thought through, and maybe you can point out to me what errors of reasoning I have committed.