If you've been following my blogs for the past few days, you'll be aware of the fact that I've been concentrating on a variety of space-and-UFO-related stories that in my opinion form a necessary backdrop and context from which to view President Obama's recent executive order concerning space weather. And it has been a strange concoction indeed, from Wikileaks emails dumps to the macabre and bizarre death of Max Spiers, a British UFO researcher who also investigated occult connections, and died in a manner suggesting occult aspects were at work, and so on. Today's ingredient in this soup is the following story, shared by many readers of this website:
I've blogged previously about the European (Franco-German) Space Agency's plans to build a permanent space station at the neutral point of gravity between the Earth and the Moon, and I strongly suspect this story is connected to that.
When reading this article, something leaped out at me, and I hope it did you as well. Consider the implications of the following:
A group of scientists is launching what they say will be a new pacifist nation-state in space.
Asgardia "will become a place in orbit which is truly 'no man's land'," its website says.
The new "nation" aims to launch its first satellite late next year and hopes to one day be recognised by the UN.
But some experts have cast doubt on the viability of the plan, given international law prohibits national sovereignty claims in outer space.
Professor Sa'id Mosteshar, director of the London Institute of Space Policy and Law, cast doubt on the idea that Asgardia would be recognised under international law.
"The Outer Space Treaty… accepted by everybody says very clearly that no part of outer space can be appropriated by any state," he said.
Given Asgardia will not be associated with a self-governing territory, with its 'citizens' remaining on earth, its prospects for recognition are slim, he added.
I suspect that Professor Mosteshar might not be perceiving what is the implicit argument behind the founding of "Asgardia," and it is something that I have argued in previous blogs, namely, that the global centralization project seems to have run into some difficulty here on earth, with the BREXIT vote, other European nations now increasingly voicing opposition to the whole EU project, and also with the Trump campaign's "Americanism not Globalism" slogan. Globalization is in my opinion an inevitability. But the globalists have managed to convince many - without much by way of real argument - that this requires a massive global central government, which, of course, will be massively unresponsive to cultural and regional needs, much less to local conditions and markets. As a result, I argued that the centralizers, the classic "Mr. Global," were opting for a "top down" approach, i.e., one rooted in space.
While current space treaties do indeed prohibit the extension of Earth-bound national sovereignties, they do not seem to me to exclude sovereignties of different sorts, namely (1) corporate sovereignties, and (2) the establishment of a "national" sovereignty not tied to any Earth-based nation, but in fact, established ab origine in space itself, which is what the Asgardia approach seems to be suggesting.
More to the point, recall yesterday's blog regarding the Wikileaks email dumps of emails between disclosure advocate and former Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell, and campaign director for Darth Hillary, John Podesta. You'll recall that Mitchell was arguing that "non-violent ETIs" were demanding a stop to human violence in return for the sharing of zero point energy technology, a statement with all sorts of problems, as I outlined yesterday. I won't rehearse those points again here. But taking Mr. Mitchell's statements and claims at face value, the establishment of a totally pacificistic "space nation" could be taken as an attempt to address those concerns prima facie.
And that, indeed, is not only today's high octane speculation, but that indeed may be the hidden point of the exercise.
See you on the flip side...