We may run to the hills, the pub or the gun chest. Hopefully some will overcome their inherent fear to ask a few salient questions to the alien visitors, such as:
*Why are you here?
*Where do you come from?
*What do you want?
Alien visitations are not a new scenario. They have been repeated countless times throughout history. Aliens have come in search of silks, spices and opiates from The Old World. Aliens like Christopher Columbus who discovered the Americas, and Captain James Cook who discovered Arnhem Land. The pursuit of adventure by noble men, funded by ignoble capitalists.
Unfortunately for ancient civilisations, the discovery of new lands by ruling empires resulted in the eventual pillaging and plundering of terra nullius followed inexorably with the introduction of a foreign government, religion and disease upon the civilisations that had been native to the land. This is why modern man fears ETs. We fear that what we have done to others of our own species in our history could happen to us by another species in the future. But I ask - will this happen again? But not just to a new continent, but a new earth?
I would argue that these 'new' visitors cannot inflict alien sovereignty upon this earth for a number of reasons:
- Alien visitations have been recorded throughout human history. Our presence has been known to ETs since antiquity. We are not a 'recent' novelty in the eyes of ETs. Nor could we be considered a 'new' treasure to be plundered. One could actually argue the opposite - we have already been plundered in the past!
- The argument that we have mineral resources beyond those found elsewhere in the galaxy is unfounded and laudable. Many near-earth asteroids have 10-100 times more minerals than this planet, and are uninhabited (and therefore non-hostile). Asteroids located near Mars are reported to have more valuable minerals than those found on earth. It has also been argued that our biological stores may be sought after as unique, but to any ET with abundant technology, especially genetic manipulation such as those who have purportedly created humanity in the first place, our storehouse of genes are not arguably unique. If we argue that we are historically created as genetically mutations by ETs, would this not logically dictate that they must have genetic stores in abundance?
- If ETs were to invade, they would have done so more than fifty years ago, before we developed nuclear weapons and other military arsenal reverse-engineered specifically for extraterrestrial defence
- If ETs had a 'harvest' plan similar to that proposed by the Annunaki, they could have easily have defeated us psychologically pre-Ascension. We are no more likely to accept a foreign rule in this current spiritual state than we are to accept the dark cabal's rule in world governments.
- The theory that ETs have superior mind powers - the capacity to change our thoughts and overpower them - is well known. However, such powers are increasingly vapid in a post-Ascension state. Many people are awakening from years of mind control by politicians, media and the military. We no longer trust authority, except our own.
- For all that has been posited about the human propensity for greed and carelessness, attributed to our 'selfish genes', humans are remarkably selfless and altruistic during times of peak confrontation and when our survival is under threat.
- We are an inherently xenophobic planet - the likelihood of a conflict or covert invasion is unlikely considering our long history of being invaded by other tribes, nations, races. Only peaceful mediation would work. And thus is it any wonder why disclosure has been so long in coming?
- The argument for a subtle invasion by interbreeding is too problematic. Although half-bred aliens probably exist, it is questionable whether their allegiance can be truly non-human directed. A point in fact is the 'illuminati', who even in their selfishness, will surrender to an external force with the caveat that they retain their human pleasures and security.
- The long history of American, Russian and Chinese mediation with malevolent ETs has shown extensively our distrust of less than honourable visitors. Despite our abuse and secretion of alien technology, any malevolent ET would realise we are anything but predictable in an invasion scenario.
- As I have mentioned in The Guardian's Call, people's experiences with ETs are remarkably common. We are unlikely to immediately deify any alien visitor as a god or a devil. More likely, we will assume him as merely a stranger. Some are good, some are bad. Is this any different to our experiences when meeting any stranger?
The argument for a global malevolent invasion is illogical, unless we assume they are not extraterrestrial but interterrestrial (i.e. a human cabal wanting to take over the earth, which I argue has already happened!). It is well known to those steeped in the journals of alternate media that malevolent ETs do in fact exist and frequently invade out airspace. However, the duplicity of these humanoids cannot serious impact us globally at this time. Not because of our supposed technological skills at defending ourselves, but primarily because of our spiritual skills at dispelling illusions. I posit the argument that were Jesus to appear in latter day America, he would quickly be sidelined as yet another prophet, not because he was not who he declared himself to be, but that individual spirituality has risen to a level that has almost made prophets redundant as global teachers.
More than one generation must pass before the homocentric universe is toppled, just as it took a generation after Galileo's death before the notion of a heliocentric universe was finally accepted. Even with space craft from the Pleiedes in the sky over every major city worldwide, some citizens will still flatly deny their existence, just as surely as some deny the existence of homosexuals, UFOs and ghosts today.
As a practicing veterinarian (after 25 years, I am still trying to get it right), I would welcome a revolution in ET-assisted medicine. I am constantly amazed and bemused that science thinks it has full control over disease. I see, on a daily basis, diseases that we control rather than cure, just as police control crime rather than cure it. We fail holistically, just as human medicine does, to treat the whole patient, not just the disease. We are managed by bosses, clients' expectations and drug representatives, each out to get their share of the attention. If we were fully looking to treat the patient, we would have to admit that in many cases, unless it is a broken leg, we cannot do more than suggest healthier lifestyles or dispense antibiotics or anti-inflammatories. Curing social diseases such as obesity is one thing - curing a genetic disease is another.
I cringe when I think what the next generation will perceive us early 21st century 'healers', when in our arrogance we think ourselves wise and learned men, yet in reality are often more concerned with income rather than outcome. After so many degrees under my belt, I can honestly say that all my knowledge is worthless compared to my intuition. I am fully cognisant that there is more we don't know about health than we know about disease. Health is a oneness, whereas disease is a discordant plurality of an infinite number of ways that things can go wrong when we interfere with nature.
And what of religion post-disclosure? My devout friends will no doubt retain their faith. Indeed, like myself, they will probably develop a deeper faith and firmer resolve which is based on a true sense of fellowship with out fellow man, which after all is the meaning of religion. A oneness based on the many.
What if our new brothers and sisters are no different than us? What if their needs for fellowship and community can be shared with our own. What if they have needs as equal to our own? Would we be able to acknowledge them rather than label them with the same bigotry we labelled in prior centuries the homosexuals, the blacks, the flat-earth deniers?
Can we step up and treat them as aliens in need of a home? It may have taken many years, but we welcomed Germany and Japan into the international community after WWII. The rogue extraterrestrial elements may call a surrender post-disclosure. Can we finally accept them as we accepted the two rogue nations after the second world war? Or will we be forever distrustful and armed? The choice must be ours to make. Sooner of later, someone has to have the courage to step up to the plate and lay down their guns. In destroying an enemy, we only sow the seeds of future retribution. In refusing to continue fighting, we open the dialogue for lasting peace. There can only be one outcome, unless we are looking to win, but in winning, everyone loses in the long run. I ask only that whoever accepts our invitation to co-exist on this planet, that they honour our sovereign international constitutions as well as our 'five freedoms' before requesting a resident visa.
Forgetting the naive politicians and media who will clamour for attention over this latest circus that has arrived in town, one thing is for sure, disclosure will reveal to most intelligent people that humanity did not evolve from monkeys, that Darwin's theories fell short of his expectations, that science in its arrogance has failed us, and that Christ is not the only saviour on the table.
Shantideva said it best: 'If there's something you can do about it, why worry? If there's nothing you can do about it, why worry?'