Wednesday 23 August 2023

Keep Cash Victory

There has been a potent counterattack against the cashless society agenda. If you've never watched GB News then please do so. It may not be HPANWO, but it is a breath of fresh air compared to the usual standards of the legacy media. For the last few weeks they have been running a campaign called "Don't Kill Cash" which includes a petition that has gathered over 300,000 signatures, including mine. They presented this to Number Ten (They took the photograph above of them handing it over to the doorman, who does not look very happy about it). This amount of support will make some kind of backtracking inevitable; in fact just hours later the Treasury announced a review of all cashless reforms and an acknowledgement that protecting cash access is necessary. I would add, like the campaigners, that the status of cash as legal tender in retail is also necessary. There is additional pressure from consumers too which is very welcome. Research conducted in January last year showed that 73% of people paid with cash for something. Despite more and more ATM's shutting down, withdrawals rose by 19%. The Nationwide Building Society even calls this a "post-Covid (cash) comeback". Source: Is Britain "ready to go cashless"? Who cares because we don't want to! At the same time, the heroic Piers Corbyn has made a scene at one of London's infamous cashless grocers. He picked up a box of strawberries and left the correct money in coins on the helpdesk before walking out with the product he purchased. The police can't do anything because he's not shoplifting is he? Source: This is all very encouraging. It shows that the drive for the financial side of the New World Order is faltering. May it falter even more and fall.
See here for background:

Monday 21 August 2023

The Aviary- a Film Review

A new documentary film has emerged on YouTube called The Aviary- Disturbing Truth of UFO's. It is produced by a content creator called Digital Vortex. On a technical level, it is slick, artistic, professional and very well-edited, but what about its content? It opens with the line: "This is the true story of a counterintelligence operation to propagate a modern myth." That initial premise is true, but not in the way the producer thinks. It begins with the sordid tale of Paul Bennewitz, a businessman living in Albuquerque, New Mexico USA. He was very interested in UFO's and had a radio scanner. One day he received some strange signals emanating from the US Air Force base near his home and was worried that they might be from aliens. He was a patriotic man and a World War II veteran so he decided to report his findings to the Air Force from a position of complete trust. The AFOSI agent assigned to his case was Richard Doty; I tell the rest of the story in detail here:, and it is summarized in the film. Bill Moore's full 1989 confession speech is now on YouTube: This launched the concept so beloved of the backslappers and skeptics alike: that the UFO phenomenon itself is nothing more than some kind of engineered neo-mythology intended to launder more down-to-earth secrets, like spy-planes. This is not a very original theory, in fact these days it is rather fashionable. Nevertheless, what happens next does require explanation because Doty and his accomplices in the Aviary spy-ring went on to gaslight Paul Bennewitz into a mental breakdown from which he never recovered. They hacked his computer, transmitted fake alien signals at his house, showed him planted follies at Dulce that looked like the product of alien intelligence and whispered "inside information" about ET's to him in private. According to the narrative, this methodology did not start and end with the Bennewitz affair. It can be traced back earlier and it continues to this day. By now I'd guessed where the plot was leading. UFO Cover-up Live is an extraordinary TV programme. It was broadcast in October 1988 and was a primetime live telethon with units across the United States and several other countries which discussed in detail most of the ideas in conspiratorial UFOlogy that are still popular today. The secret insiders who appear with their appearance and voices distorted are all the Aviary handlers and agents. However, the distortion is not good enough. "Falcon" is very transparently Richard Doty. Source: Their activity was not confined to TV appearances. They popped up at UFO conferences, organized skywatches and posted radical claims on Usenet sites, the 1980's precursor to the World Wide Web. When Bob Lazar came on the scene a whole new cycle of the same UFO stories restarted and this led inexorably to the world of post-2017 "New UFOlogy". Source:
The narrator claims that the entire explosion of interest caused by the December '17 New York Times article is based on the misleading promotion of the US Navy videos that apparently show nothing but the normal operation of drones, seagulls and conventional aircraft. This matter has been debated a lot in the last few years and I think it is simply untrue that there is nothing anomalous in those videos, for example see: and: The Aviary does not present any new argument to this controversy. As inevitably as night follows day and day follows night, up comes the red meat without whom no backslapper's dinner plate is complete... Lue Elizondo. However the film just repeats all the points I have addressed before, like I do very effectively here: (However, nobody can beat Cristina Gomez when it comes to slapping the backslappers, see:!). The only new information in The Aviary about Elizondo is when he trolled Twitter under false identities. This is supposedly evidence that he is a shill. No, it is more likely to be evidence that he is inexperienced with social media and not a flawless angel. Digital Vortex congratulates Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein for not allowing themselves to be recruited by the neo-Aviary network, like I did with Linda Moulton Howe; but how can he be so sure they have resisted the temptation? Sam last mentioned the UFO issue back in March and he had by no means dismissed the mysterious individuals who had contacted him. He seems less positive than he was since he watched Mick West but is still wavering. Hopefully he will spot the holes in West's analysis. As for Weinstein, I'm not so sure. He gave a very ambiguous interview to Kurt Jaimungal and Mick here: See here for more information: and: Could it be that the people the two scientists are in touch with are people genuinely behind the drive to give us Disclosure? The documentary states on two occasions that there is no evidence for ET visitation. I don't know where to start in explaining why that is incorrect. Regular readers can quickly find their own favourite QV. On the first of those occasions the narrator adds: "It's not easy to admit to yourself, never mind others, that you have been duped. And if you spend a lifetime falling down a rabbit hole leading nowhere, even if you realize it, the odds are you wouldn't leave it; because your life has become so intimately entwined in it that it doesn't pay to confront reality. Instead it's easier to viciously attack those who point out the irrationality... If you have spent any time in the UFO community you will know this to be especially true because you see it all the time." Those condescending words are the absolute catnip of the backslapper. How many of them realize though that it can apply just as much to themselves and the skeptics as it does to UFO believers? It is a surprisingly similar mindset to MBA. See here for details: Despite this, The Aviary does come up with a few groundbreaking concepts that I hadn't really considered before. It was actually a friend of mine that commented on the hearings a couple of weeks ago: "I think they're trying to scare the Russians." She then went on to claim that much of the SDI "Star Wars" system to shoot down ballistic missiles in the '80's was pure science fiction. Both sides postured at each other like this in various ways during the Cold War. As I've said many times, it's impossible to rule that out; any more than it's impossible to rule out several other objectives for the UFO Disclosure possibility being disinformation, such as "the Last Card" fake alien invasion scenario, see: However, there is not only reason to believe that the current UFO news stories are a push for willing Disclosure, but that if they are then we cannot afford to miss that opportunity. The producers nominate who they think is "behind the curtain", likely to be running the scam, should it exist, at the highest level; and they put forward a name I have never heard before: Cecil b Scott Jones. I can find very little independent information on this individual; the first hit that appears is the CIA document mentioned in the film. It may well be a placeholder name for more than one person or maybe a particular role. So what is the reason for this whole very expensive and intricate psychological warfare operation? What is the point in making millions of people believe aliens are visiting us? Partly, the narrator claims, it's the standard trendy notion that UFO's are distracting people from other real worldly secrets. I don't need to repeat why I think that is false; in fact a regular reader has already requested that I do not repeat my bankrobber metaphor again. If you have not heard of this then it can be found in many other HPANWO publications, such as this one: However, The Aviary film suggests it might have been encouraged as a reaction to the C**** lockdown, but they present no evidence for why this should be the case if the more conventional theory is wrong. I am actually disappointed that so many otherwise credible researchers take this possibility at face value. Can they not see that this is likely to be some kind of elaborate double-bluff? If you were running the truth embargo, wouldn't you come up with some contingency plan with a deeper level of deception just in case there were people intelligent enough in your target population to detect your initial attack? It's a shame these people have been fooled like this. Most are in the United States, but some are in other countries like my own. As I detail in the background links, I consider Richard D Hall to be especially naive in this respect. (We'll talk about it in the carpark, Richard.) I'm also curious why a clip from the "Alien Interview" was shown twice in the programme without any explanation at all. I assume the producers are implying that the Interview is faked, but they don't say so outright. Why not? As regular readers will know, I totally disagree, for example see: I would say that The Aviary- Disturbing Truth of UFO's is definitely worth watching; but, like all documentaries, it should not be accepted as the ultimate truth, regardless of how persuasive it seems or how well it presents itself technically. Keep one eye on the intellectual exit at all times.
See here for more background:

Tuesday 15 August 2023

My Dad Asked Me about UFO's!

After the famous UAP hearing last month I wondered if we had entered a new world where everything was different, but I wasn't sure. Any doubt that this was the case evaporated from my mind like dew in the morning sun a few days ago when my father said to me: "Ben, what's all this I keep reading in the news about UFO's?" When I'd recovered from the shock I gave him the basics. My father is a very conventional man, totally different from me. I would actually go as far as to say he is wilfully ignorant about some issues, including the subject of this article. I won't identify him, but he is seventy-six years old and comes from what is commonly called a "skilled working class" background. He is Bristol-Welsh with ancestry in midwest Wales. He retired a decade ago from a career in a series engineering firms and has since kept himself busy with rambling and amateur construction. He whinges a lot about his health and age, but he is actually very fit for a man in his seventies. He goes to the gym, rides a bike and has a younger girlfriend; comparatively, she's sixty-seven. I have had a lot of conflict with him in my life, for example:
When I was first "red pilled" I was very outspoken about it. I was so enthusiastic about all this new information that was coming my way that I naively failed to understand that other people might not feel the same way about it. My father's attitude was very negative and stubborn. I had numerous debates with him that I won easily, but he refused to change his position despite this. I think that people often feel more sensitive about arguments with their parents than they do with other people, like friends and partners etc. Therefore, to avoid falling out with him I decided over twenty years ago to stop completely discussing with him anything except mundane everyday matters. I know not everybody would handle such a situation like that in this way, but I chose to. This is why it was so astonishing that he volunteered a conversation about UFO's with me. He never looks behind the headlines so the only way he could have heard about the UFOlogical current affairs is that he came across a publication about it that was trending considerably. "I know you are knowledgeable on this matter..." he continued. I was surprised he remembered. After I had explained the outline of the issue he appeared not to be worried. "Oh, I see." he said nonchalantly. He seemed casually curious more than anything else; not very interested, but willing to entertain it as a topic of conversation. In the last few years I have questioned my previous judgement, that most of the general population would panic in the immediate post-Disclosure period. I would have written the first part of Roswell Rising slightly differently today, see: I actually now believe that there would be a continuum of different reactions from people post-D. About five to ten percent would rejoice; I would be among those. Maybe a similar proportion would indeed freak out, but the majority would respond like my dad. They would shrug their shoulders and say "Oh." I've a feeling we'll soon find out if that's true.
See here for background:

Sunday 6 August 2023

Ben Emlyn-Jones and Nathan Lucius

I have been featured on Veritas Mundi with Nathan Lucius see:
Subjects discussed include: my personal background, where aliens might come from, internet conspiracy forums and much much more. I will shortly be speaking at a live event for Nathan's group Truth Seekers Teesside, see:

Saturday 5 August 2023

A Good Comment on TUFOP

After December 2017, social media exploded with a whole series of emerging UFO content creators. One of the best examples of this "New UFOlogy" bonanza is a programme with a title that is quite original because it is so literal: That UFO Podcast. I listen to all the episodes of this programme and usually enjoy them, but there has been an exception. The other day, the host Andrew McGrillen posted an interview with the UFO witness Alex Dietrich. Alex used to be a US Navy fighter pilot and was in the same squadron as Cmdr David Fravor. She was involved with the famous UAP encounters near the USS Nimitz in 2004; but she has been less vocal than Fravor, keeping a low profile since her 60 Minutes interview. I was looking forward to this episode because of its rare and significant guest, but sadly almost from the outset Andy started making statements that were obvious feminist virtue-signalling; for example saying his wife took an interest in his show for a change because it had a "female voice". The conversation that followed included numerous other tiresome clangers, similar to the ones you've probably heard before; I know I have. The worst was when Alex remarked that the news panels and YouTube videos about the hearing were all overwhelmingly with white males and that we were "sucking the air out of the room." I sighed because I wasn't in the mood for a debate, but I knew I could not remain silent about this; if only so that other viewers who feel the same way knew they were not alone. Therefore I posted the following comment under the video:
"It's great to hear Alex on the show, thanks. However, I must comment on the idea about 'diversity'. If there is a 'scarcity' of women in UFOlogy then this does not mean necessarily that there is anything wrong. I often hear that we need 'balance'. However, any attempt to force a balance in that regard would be incredibly destructive. 'More women' can so easily be translated into 'fewer men', especially white men. How many does not count as 'scarcity'? Without proper definitions it's impossible to know and this is why I consider this situation rather Orwellian. Men considerably outnumber women in UFOlogy and I suspect they always will. It is not us 'sucking the air out of the room', which is actually a very insulting thing to say; it may be a simple product of human biodiversity, one of the perfectly harmless natural inequalities in life. Some inequalities are harmless because no individual is held back by them. It appears UFO's are more likely to appeal to the male mind than the female, when generalizing across the whole population, for totally benign and organic reasons. It's part of what makes men and women essentially different. There are many exceptions of course and I assert that there is absolutely nothing precluding a woman who wants to from getting involved in UFOlogy if she chooses. Women have made enormous contributions to UFOlogy. It is not only in UFOlogy that this myth can be found. In fact in every institution where men outnumber women, from university science departments to computer game fan clubs, the pejorative phrase: 'dominated by men' will be heard and the cry goes out: 'Something is wrong here! Something needs to be fixed!' They invariably assume that there is some kind of cackling hand-rubbing cabal of male chauvinist pigs actively maintaining their male exclusivity, but evidence for this is rarely found. It is simply an assumption. What's more, this is certainly not the case in UFO research; I'd be the first to object is it was. Nothing needs to be fixed because nothing is wrong." Source:
If those words sound familiar to regular readers then that is because the comment is adapted from ones I've made before to Alyson Dunlop, Erica Lukes and Paola Leopizzi Harris. The comment cannot currently be seen on the video. Now, I'm tempted to be defensive and assume Andy deleted it, but it's too soon to say that. Comments sometimes do inexplicably vanish from YouTube and my own HPANWO TV viewers have experienced that. Also, my comment was polite and respectful, however critical and robust it might be. It may well be in the spam folder because of its length. I'm glad I did this. I will do so again every time anybody tried to spread such toxic and perilous ideas, even unknowingly, into my community.
See here for background:

Wednesday 2 August 2023

Crafty Nihilist Pre-Glastonbury

I have recently been to the Glastonbury Symposium 2023, but before I did I went to see my good friends Mark and Liz Froud, aka The Crafty Nihilist, who were also going to Glastonbury.
Video 1:
Video 2:
Video 3:
See here for my reportage of the Symposium:
See here for the previous time I featured on The Crafty Nihilist's channel: