The loss of a one sided certainty has paved the way to an unbounded creativity that has led a number of thinkers to radically re-conceive history, and suggest – as Erich Van Daniken does – that human development upon the physical and psychological planes has not been the product of a straight forward Darwinian evolutionary process, but is rather the consequence of interference at the genetic level, carried out by technologically advanced alien civilisations who visited the planet Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, and who, whilst finding human beings in a very primitive state of development, improved their DNA and bequeathed certain clues for the future development of advanced technology. Van Daniken expressed this ‘ancient astronaut’ theory in his 1968 book entitled ‘Chariots of the Gods – Was God an Astronaut?’ This book has sold millions and has been in print ever since with many reprints occurring in the early 21st century.
‘In 1992 much of his output centred on the defeat of George Bush Jr, in the US Presidential elections following his successful invasion of Kuwait and southernIraqin the first Gulf War. Through such material Hicks described his political stance ‘as a little to the Left’. He says that he did not vote for Bush because the recent Republican administrations had sponsored genocide in South American countries – whilst the US media limited the issue to whether a new Democratic President would raise taxes. The natural Rightwing bias within theUnited Statessystem is so prevalent that any legitimate notions of Socialism are treated as if they are a crime of immense immorality, stupidity and the product of extreme mental illness. Hicks detested the mainstream media – and along with corporate advertisers – viewed it as a product of Satan’s seed. In this respect he could be very forceful in his opinions – surprisingly so when his style of delivery is taken into account. The passion manifests suddenly within a meandering narrative about this or that. Regardless of the raw human emotion, he never abandoned the principle of considered opinion gained through intellectual analysis. The intelligence of Hicks – and his intelligence was as able as any renowned thinker Western civilisation has produced – never abandoned an accompanying morality that moulded ideas and directed actions.’
‘All the above photographs are listed as appearing throughout four decades – the late 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, and were taken across theUSA and theUK. When presented in a montage the shared symbology is obvious and apparent. Circumstantial differences in the place, time and environment, although interesting are only of a superficial concern when the ‘visionary’ nature of UFO symbolism is being examined. These differences can be suitably recorded and then filtered out of the analysis. Simply staring at the four photographs for a number of minutes will let the human mind sieve out the superfluous information and allow for the dominant present archetype to become exclusively manifest. This process necessarily supersedes even the presence of colour, even if the photographs are in black and white. Colour, again although useful and interesting in a broader consideration of UFO experience is not, and can not be a defining aspect of a UFO’s presence. It is the spherical shape of the UFO that is its defining feature.’
‘Even this material plane with its apparent solidity and predictable behaviour is a manifestation of the mind itself. It is not an illusion, nor is it real. Language and concept break down when the mind reaches beyond its innate conditioning. What is seen (or perceived) is reported through the limitation of human language, which is itself the product of living within a material world. It is not designed to formulate concepts that lay beyond its normal cognitive reach. This explains why advanced science, insightful philosophy and transcendental religion appear to be expressing truth in a nonsense language that appears incomplete and often irrational. To explain that which lies just beyond the senses stretches conventional language to its limit. Logic dictates that such descriptions can not be soundly provided and that to stay true to the originating perception, the descriptions provided must be open ended – as if the open end in the logic is in fact a map pointing the way toward the truth. The material plane assumes a completeness and totality for itself that is blatantly not true. The logic based upon the observation and measurement of matter, likewise also assumes a completeness that is incorrect from the position of the multiverse. Of course, closed systems of logic are complete within their respective operational boundaries, but this completeness is highly localised and not indicative in any way of a possession of higher knowledge or wisdom. The use of enclosed (local) logic systems to explain the entirety of what exists outside of itself – is itself an error in philosophical speculation. Rigid thought patterns are reflective of the rigid material forms that they measure. The multiverse is neither rigid nor flexible and it can not be assessed or limited to a set of binary opposites, or conceptual dichotomies.’