Exopolitics: On The D List, Part II

A Shift

After my last piece UFOs: Exo-Politics: on the D-List a poster on a UFO forum whose opinions I respect made the comment that the “powers that be” won’t allow the rest of us to get anywhere in the context of exopolitics. And recently Kyle King, on his blog UFO Reflections, made some insightful comments, partly in response to my article on exopolitics: Sarcastic Twittery: Exopolitics on my Mind. King made points I hadn’t considered. (my response to his blog entry is on my blog UFO Bits.) Both had caused me to rethink my opinions on exopolitics.

Exopolitics will always be on the ‘D-List’ and while I began thinking about this as a negative, it’s not such an alarming idea after all. I won’t go so far as to say it’s positive; I’m still rattled by the often vehement dismissal that exopolitics experiences. In many ways dismissing exopolitics outright is an easy cop-out for both UFO poseurs as well as some serious researchers. I will always insist that UFOlogy needs people working away at all perspectives, from nuts and bolts to the more airy realms. It’s not a contest; you can dig away at one theory, that doesn’t invalidate another.

But King made some excellent points. While I was commenting that it is arrogant to suppose we don’t need a “plan,” he pointed out that it’s arrogant to think we could assume we’d know what extraterrestrials want, care about, or how they behave.

Kyle King also pointed out that it’s entirely possible that various governments have entities in holding areas, they’re just not telling the rest of us. Behind the scenes there are no doubt a few who are well educated in the tactics needed to get to your alien; (sort of in - house exopolitics) but again, they’re not telling us, which makes the idea of us out here musing about exopolitics a non-issue.

Us vs. Them

We can think about exopolitics all we want, but if the government (ours, theirs, any, doesn’t matter) wants us to know what it wants us to know, when they want us to know it, there isn’t anything we can do about it.

In the context of the messenger, exopolitics frequently gets a bad rap, for many of the messengers are often both vague yet insistent in their message. It’s the messenger that irks many UFO pundits, not necessarily the idea itself. In a moment of synchronicity, while working on this piece I came across the Exopolitics Certification course! Yes, you too can now become certified in Exopolitics! There might be well meaning people involved, though naive. No matter, since this latest venue by the exopolitics devotees practically guarantees that it not be taken seriously, seen only as a tacky gimmick.

And then of course, there’s the fact that many criticize those heavily engage in exopolitics as wasting valuable UFO me time. (Especially when one sees things like the ‘Exopolitics Certification’ courses.) I agree with that to a point, but again I have to insist that there is room for all aspects of UFO study in UFOlogy.

Even if we all agree that exopolitics is a good solid thing to engage in, it is naive to think (as I did) that any government is going to allow its citizenry to take over the business of dealing with the aliens.

Personal Exopolitics

Disclosure and exopolitics are closely related. Both operate on two levels concurrently. There is disclosure, which includes disinformation and debunking, at the official level, along with whatever exopolitics they are manipulating behind the scenes, and then there’s the rest of us. Our personal journeys, our personal experiences, our individual relationships and sharing of information and communications with each other continue. Meanwhile, the official position is often “to laugh’ at the rest of us. They don’t care, and we can’t do much, if anything, about it. Many of us are often used, often without our awareness, for their own purposes.

There remains the personal in all this discussion about exopolitics despite the infrastructure. An individual’s experiences and encounters are for the individual to relate, to explore, to figure out for themselves. There are no doubt thousands of ‘mini exopolitics’ relationships going on between experiencer and experience, individual and entity, all the time. The danger in that is -- as we’ve been witnessing for decades -- are the conflicting messages. The grays are good, they’re bad. World peace, global catastrophe, etc. Confusion and contradiction are the two labels that accurately describe the nature of the UFO phenomenon. In that context, combined with government control, how can we expect exopolitics to really do anything?

As I said, it needs to be done on an individual basis, and who knows where that will lead, or if it will do any good. On the other hand, do we have any choice? For myself, and many others I know, we can’t not talk about our experiences. But really, outside of some UFO researchers and the Sci-Fi channel, who cares?

Cracked and Tinted

So why bother? I don’t know, but I have these cartoon like diminutive characters that reside inside me. One is a jaded realist who is immensely frustrated at the naiveté of so many ‘experiencers,’ the other is a reluctant optimistic wearing cracked rose colored glasses.

And maybe, like some of the contactees at Giant Rock in the 1950s and ‘60s, I find some well meaning (though naive) charm about some of the people involved in exopolitics. I want to shelter them from the onslaught of derision, even while wanting to kick them in their collective behinds for their gullibility and general fogginess.

So, while exopolitics is interesting to visit, I realize the powers that be won’t let us, on any international grass roots we’re the people level. There will be no talk to the aliens rallies. Still, Ill choose my disheveled optimist with her broken pink lenses over the perennially irked realist, much to my surprise.

Like it or not, there is a huge chunk of UFO research/study that involves the personal; the self. If that includes a personal ‘exopolitics’ relationship between you and the phenomena (it has to) so be it. But expanding that to a blanket exopolitics correctness is, as King and others have pointed out, arrogant, as well as naive.