Rescued from the old blog. I think it has some good thoughts. In the 10 months since I’ve written this, we’ve lost Mac Tonnies, which still stings. See Macbots for a great tribute blog to Mac.
First Anniversary of Declaration to end secret extraterrestrial agreements
Exactly one year ago a consortium of citizen organizations authorized a Declaration to end what were claimed to be secret official agreements concerning extraterrestrial life. Based on first hand testimonies by a number of whistleblowers and civilian contractors, the Galactic Freedom Day Declaration asserts that agreements concerning extraterrestrial life have been secretly entered into by a number of government authorized agencies, departments and corporations. In some cases, these agreements involve representatives of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations whose existence has not been disclosed to the general public. On 08/08/08 individuals and citizen organizations around the world collectively joined in events calling for exposing and ending such agreements. A consortium of citizen organizations from Hawaii, USA, Canada, Britain, Spain, South Africa, and Hong Kong formally sponsored the Declaration and launched an online petition which currently has over 2000 signatures.
What do we learn?
- “Hawaii” and “USA” are apparently separate political entities
- Online petitions still exist despite their uselessness
- Some people don’t get it.
The key line for me comes in the second paragraph: “natural right of all citizens to have safe and open contact with extraterrestrial visitors, and to engage in non-official diplomacy.” Is there such a thing as non-official diplomacy? Dictionary.com defines the word as
||the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
||the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
||skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one’s dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.
At most, I can see definition 3 fitting a “non-governmental” use of the term. To use a terrestrial example, if I talk to someone from Russia, I’m talking to someone from Russia–I’m not engaging in any kind of diplomacy. Of course the Exopol crowd would shift focus back onto the question of whether or not the public should be made aware of these alleged visitors. That’s actually a really good question–but is it the best question?
One camp answers “yes!” mostly because “whistleblowers” have told them that the visitors are friendly, part of a galactic federation, here for our own good. Others say “no!” because they fear the visitors are demons (or, as Russ Dizdar calls them, homo satanas. As an aside, I have a feeling that his “black awakening” terminology contains elements of racism. “Dark Awakening” or “Awakening of Evil” would have worked just as well) or, if not demons, then certainly evil entities very much akin to the Lear/Cooper/KRLL fantasies of the 80s and 90s.
Both of these answers assume that the visitors are aliens from another planet (or spiritual dimension in the case of the “Christian” interpretations of the phenomenon). The idea that both “good” and “bad” entities might be:
It never occurs to either the exopolitics/spacebuddy crowd or the para-evangelical fringe (I don’t know if that’s actually a phrase or not) that they aren’t dealing with what they think they are.
In the end, as we look at the many, many facets of this phenomena and examine reports and findings from all sides, rather than simply those with which we happen to agree, we might find the question is not whether or not we should be allowed to talk to the visitors and engage in diplomacy with them. The question is whether the concept of diplomacy makes sense in such a context. It might be akin to opening discussions with a tornado or thunderstorm. It might be as futile as politely asking the mosquitoes to stop biting us.
Whatever it is, it won’t be what anybody expects. The phenomenon will make sure of that–whatever it or they may represent seem to take delight in confounding our expectations.