Opinion: Israelis Probably Lying About Making Contact with Extraterrestrials

Table of Contents

1. Israel and Aliens
2. Israel Needs Good Publicity
3. Americans Turned a Blind Eye to Child Abuse in the 1990s
4. Adaptive Information Processing (A.I.P.) and Trauma
5. The X-Files Substituted Alien Abduction for Child Abduction
6. John Podesta Believes in Aliens
7. Steven Spielberg's E.T. is a Pedophile Grooming Film
8. Disclaimer: Jews vs. Israel
9. Conclusion

Content

1. Israel and Aliens

      On February 1^st, 2021, Scientific American published an article titled “Astronomer Avi Loeb Says Aliens Have Visited, and He's Not Kidding”. Avi Loeb is an American-Israeli scientists. He bases his claim that aliens have made contact with human beings, on the idea that the pancake-like shape of the object 'Oumuamua is so odd that it could not be naturally occurring.

     You can read more about Avi Loeb's claims at the following links:

scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/?fbclid=IwAR1x8-19WOMmYnvNYBTvV87n6PjNSeFQTByJkdnAlyuj3U8T5bfYU8xKcyg

http://www.amazon.com/Extraterrestrial-First-Intelligent-Beyond-Earth/dp/0358278147

     Two months prior to the publication of that article – on December 10^th, 2021 – the Times of Israel published an article titled “Israeli space chief says aliens may well exist, but they haven't met humans”.

     The Times reported that Israel's space chief, Isaac Ben Israel, said that aliens exist. This came in response to the claims of retired Israeli “space pioneer” Haim Eshed, that aliens “visited Earth” and “made deals with people”. According to Eshed, Israel has had contact with a “Galactic Federation” for some time now, but the rest of humanity is not yet ready for contact with aliens.

     I, for one, am not buying any of this, however.

     Don't get me wrong; I think it's totally possible that aliens exist, given the size of the universe, particularly the parts of it which humanity has not yet explored (i.e., the vast majority of it). But I wouldn't say “aliens exist” with the confidence with which Isaac Ben Israel has said so. I have no proof, nor any evidence.

     A few notes before proceeding: 1) Not all so-called “U.F.O.s” contain aliens or extraterrestrial beings. 2) U.F.O.s are real, but the belief in U.F.O.s does not necessarily mean a belief in aliens. 3) “U.F.O.” stands for “Unidentified Flying Object”. 4) The fact that there have been objects labeled “U.F.O.s”, means that U.F.O.s undoubtedly exist, but does not necessarily prove that aliens exist. Hopefully no further explanation should be necessary.

     U.F.O.s exist. And aliens may well exist. But the Israelis need to show us more proof. All we have to go on, is bare assertion, and a pancake-shaped asteroid.

     The debate between Isaac Ben Israel and Haim Eshed reminds me of what Noam Chomsky said about the “Overton Window”, the window of acceptable debate.

     Chomsky said that people who want to restrict free speech and restrict debate, create the illusion of free speech, by only allowing debate within a narrow range (or window) of acceptability, but promoting lively debate within that range.

     The publicity which Ben Israel and Eshed received for their views on alien contact, has effectively restricted the debate, so that the only acceptable positions are “We've definitely made contact, and the Israeli space chief said so” and “We've definitely made contact, but don't tell people outside of Israel about it.”

     This narrow range of acceptable viewpoints risks inculcating people into worship and blind obedience of government, and possibly also Israeli or Jewish superiority. [Note: This is not to say that all Jewish people are Jewish supremacists! I am saying the Israeli government takes advantage of the Jewish religion in order to centralize its power.]

     The people of Israel, and the world over, should be cautious about believing what the Israelis say at face value.

2. Israel Needs Good Publicity

     The Israelis are, of course, in a monumental amount of trouble at the moment.

     Ghislaine Maxwell - a possible asset of the M.O.S.S.A.D. (the Israeli equivalent of the C.I.A., the foreign surveillance apparatus) - is in U.S. custody, and faces decades in prison. This, after her ex-boyfriend and protector Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly murdered in his prison cell, amid much debate regarding how it was done, who could have done it, and even whether he was smuggled out and replaced with a body double.

     Maxwell's father, for those who don't know, was an Israeli super-spy who died mysteriously on a yacht named for his daughter, after stealing a highly valuable prosecutorial software called PROMIS and providing it to Israel and other actors. More and more Americans are discovering this fact every day, as well as the fact that Harvey Weinstein hired Israeli hitmen from an organization called Black Cube to stalk women whom he thought were going to rat him out for sexual abuse (which was exposed by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker and his book Catch and Kill).

     The Israelis need a distraction from Epstein, Maxwell, Weinstein and Black Cube, Alan Dershowitz (who defended Epstein, and Israeli spies involved in nuclear secrets theft and 9/11), The Zionist Bronfman family's funding of the NXIVM Hollywood sex cult, and the growing sentiment against Israel's occupation of Palestine and against the pro-Israel lobby in America.

     So why not aliens?

     I believe that we have not made contact with aliens. I believe that the Israelis are lying on purpose.

     I suspect that any Israeli who says with confidence that we have made contact, is making it up in order to promote Israel, which prides itself on its technology (for example, its microchips, and its health technology).

     In early December 2020, the Israeli nonprofit initiative SpaceIL announced that it would be attempting to send three spacecrafts to the Moon in the near future. This comes after an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the Moon in late 2019.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/year-crash-israel-unveils-plan-moon-landing-74624435

http://phys.org/news/2020-12-year-israel-unveils-moon.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/science/israel-moon-beresheet-2.html

     I believe that these stories about having made contact with aliens, and knowing for sure that they exist, is part of a strategy to 1) cover up for Israel's many scandals; and 2) raise awareness about - and funding for - the Israeli space program and Moon missions, and for its Iron Dome missile defense shield technology (a/k/a “Star Wars”).

     Nothing would boost American donations to Israeli space companies like the possibility that the same country had made contact with aliens. One successful landing of a spacecraft on the Moon, and the Israelis will establish themselves as a space power. And getting one's foot in the door to space exploration, potentially puts Israel in a position to affect the militarization of space.

3. Americans Turned a Blind Eye to Child Abuse in the 1990s

     If you think about it, telling a child “I didn't abduct you, it was an alien abduction!” is a perfect excuse. It barely even requires changing the story. All it takes is finding a scapegoat – an alien, who doesn't exist and can't defend himself against the charge – to substitute for the real kidnapper or child abductor. It's an easy thing for a child to understand, just like “Don't tell anyone or I'll kill you – I mean the aliens will kill you.” Brainwashing complete.

     I believe that this substitution is exactly what has happened, except at a macro scale in our culture. Remember the “Satanic Panic” about ritual Satanic sexual abuse of children in daycare centers and schools in the early 1990s? After no evidence was found in the expensive McMartin preschool trial, Geraldo and other TV show hosts dropped the subject, and looked to new topics to boost ratings.

     What did they start focusing on in the mid-1990s? Sending troubled teens to boot camps on trash TV shows. Around that time, Joe Biden and his supporters were promoting teen boot camps as supposedly “less abusive alternatives to prisons”. Not every teen had that experience. You can learn more about that by researching the child abuse scandals of W.W.A.S.P.S. (World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools).

     Teen boot camps were thus a convenient way to dispose of teenagers who have probably recently been abused, by sending them to be abused by professionals. Is your kid pissed off at you because you ignore him or don't talk to him? Has he started doing drugs because he can't think of any way to cope with your abuse, or feel anything but sadness and despair? He's clearly a “troubled teen” and a “delinquent” who needs some “tough love” (without the love). Send him to a boot camp!

     What else did American media focus on next, in the mid- and late 1990s? Aliens!

     Unsolved Mysteries. X-Files. 3^rd Rock from the Sun. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Contact with Jodie Foster. Independence Day. Men in Black. The Star Wars prequels. Alien movies and shows were all over the place in the 1990s, and lots of aliens with varying combinations of cuteness and ugliness abounding along with them.

     I now suspect that this all may very well have been a subtly orchestrated and convenient way to distract America and its abused children from discussing their kidnappings and trauma.

     “Rape your kid, then blame it on aliens.” Any parent who knows how to poke holes in a child's argument and claims, should be able to use that advice successfully.

4. Adaptive Information Processing (A.I.P.) and Trauma

     In the late 2000s and 2010s, I was friends with a young man in Madison, Wisconsin, who suffered from paranoid delusionary schizophrenia, for which he took medication, and was in therapy.

     After knowing him for a year or two, he told me that he believed in aliens. Specifically, he said they were “grays” (i.e., gray aliens with large heads and large, black, oval-shaped eyes).

     Several years later, he told me that his uncle had touched him inappropriately, in a sexual manner.

     The more I thought about these two admissions, the more I began to suspect that they were, in fact, the same event. I believe that my friend thought he was abducted by aliens, but was actually molested – or abducted for the purposes of molestation – by his uncle.

     When something traumatic happens to us, our minds tend to ignore those things, because processing traumatic events – such as abuse – involves admitting to yourself that the abuse has happened. Processing trauma also involves having conscious, present access to a vivid remembrance of how you felt, physically and emotionally, when that abuse was occurring.

     The process whereby the conscious mind is shielded from traumatic memories, is called A.I.P. (Adaptive Information Processing). It is called Adaptive Information Processing because the process of pushing a traumatic memory out of the conscious mind, is an adaptive behavior. If the body needs to fight or flee in order to survive, it wouldn't make sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, if the brain had no way to push less important wants out of the conscious mind, while focusing on the most urgent one (such as fleeing from a predator or from another dangerous situation).

     It's also perhaps worth noting that Aldous Huxley mentioned in The Doors of Perception that C.D. Broad discussed the mind as a “reducing valve” which filters-out information that the conscious mind considers not necessary for us to know. Huxley built upon this idea to elaborate the notion that hallucinogenic drugs open that “reducing valve”, flinging-open the so-called “doors of perception”, allowing us to explore our unconscious and/or subconcious while we are awake (or semi-awake, as in trance states or lucid dreaming states).

     The point being: Our minds filter out information that is not useful to us. Like the spiritual knowledge that we can feel but have difficulty expressing. Or the sneaking suspicion that a loved one physically or sexually abused us in the past; so badly that we forgot about it, or blacked out in the middle of it, or denied it (or all of the above).

     From an evolutionary standpoint, it is not conducive to our survival, to be willing to admit to ourselves that a close relative has sexually abused us. After all, this probably requires confronting that relative, and close relatives are the people upon whom human beings have traditionally relied during difficult times.

     The mind would thus have every reason to block-out information like that, which could only cause trouble in the family (once known as the clan, the basic unit of civilization).

     I suspect that my friend's uncle molested him, and then did something – either overt or covert – to lead him to believe that aliens were the ones who did it. Either the uncle bombarded him with books and TV shows and movies about aliens, to subtly make him think that aliens were the explanation for whatever happened to him that night that he couldn't remember clearly; or else the uncle directly threatened him and blamed the abuse on aliens after being confronted by his nephew.

     I have not spoken to my friend in several years, so some of that is speculation on my part. But it is an educated guess. We were friends for nearly ten years.

5. The X-Files Substituted Alien Abduction for Child Abduction

     Did you ever stop to think about what the show X-Files is about, aside from merely aliens?
     Fox Mulder spends the whole show – and especially the movie – looking for his lost sister Samantha, who was abducted as a child. Her older brother thinks it was aliens, and will stop at nothing to find out what the F.B.I. knows about aliens, other mysterious beings, and his sister's disappearance.
     Who does David Duchovny's Fox Mulder work for? A secretive F.B.I. director, played by Mitch Pileggi, who's constantly telling him to keep quiet about things he's not assigned to and that are outside of his jurisdiction.
     They're always telling him to stop asking questions. It's a conspiracy of silence.
     It apparently never occurred to Fox Mulder that the fact that his little sister was abducted as a child may suggest kidnappers rather than aliens. Someone apparently forgot to tell a young Fox that kidnappers don't just want money, they might also want to touch your genitals.
     The whole point of the show is to ask the question “Where did Mulder's sister go?” and then half-answer it with a mix of “It was aliens” and “stop asking questions”. The show is back now, and – in a reverse of what happened to Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory - it is focusing on real-life government scandals more than the paranormal.
     It's hard to say whether X-Files wanted to encourage its audience to question their government more (as things seemed), or instead wanted to distract them from kidnappings, with rumors of alien abductions. As far as I can tell - based on Epstein, Maxwell, the Bronfmans, Hastert, and the admissions of former C.I.A. agent John Kiriakou – some of these child disappearances are actually being done by the U.S. government itself.
     Given what we know about how closely our government often works with Hollywood, it's hard not to wonder whether Americans were intentionally bombarded with alien stories, to distract American parents from what they really should have been worried about: teen drug addiction, teen pregnancy, teen S.T.D. rates (including H.I.V.) and who's responsible for all the child disappearances (now that we “know” it's not the school teachers or the Satanists. Right?).

6. John Podesta Believes in Aliens

     Considering this possibility - that aliens are being used as scapegoats for child disappearances – is it any wonder that former Hillary Clinton presidential campaign manager John Podesta both believes in aliens, and has been accused of child rape?
     http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-campaign-chief-john-podesta-s-interest-ufos-out-world-n674711
     In October 2016, NBC News reported that Wikileaks had leaked a 2014 e-mail from Rebecca Hardcastle Wright to Eryn Sepp and John Podesta. The topics of the e-mail were extraterrestrial experience and consciousness science.
     wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/15052
     Does this constitute an admission by the government that aliens exist? No. More likely, it is what the government directed the mainstream media to offer-up to the public, as one of the "real" Wikileaks that they are "allowed to see", in order to distract us from the more concerning contents of the Podesta e-mails.
     The e-mail may be from 2014, but N.B.C. didn't report it until the month before the 2016 election, when Wikileaks released the most damning of the John Podesta e-mails. This, to me, suggests that the admission that Podesta sent e-mails about aliens, may have been published in order to cover for, and distract from, the larger concern.
     The larger concern was, as you may remember, the allegations that he was involved in either cannibalism or child rape, in addition to participating in the occult “spirit cooking” so-called “art” practiced by apparent witch Marina Abramovic.
     Researchers were not without cause to suspect Podesta. A photograph surfaced of him with a bandage on one of his fingers, while instructions from Abramovic on how to do a spirit cooking ritual included cutting oneself on that same finger. Additionally, in the same photograph, Podesta appeared with a fish drawn on one hand, and the number 14 on the other, which researchers speculated is a reference to the Osiris myth.
     Podesta also received an e-mail on October 8^th, 2015 – from Hillary Clinton aide Tamera Stanton Luzzatto – saying that her granddaughters (whose ages she listed) would be in a heated pool “for entertainment”. Luzzatto – whose husband David J. Leiter once worked as an aide for John Kerry and also lobbied for Burisma – invited Podesta to the event.
     http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736
     Researchers discovered that Tamera Luzzatto once operated a blog called “Evie's Crib”, which some researchers believe Luzzatto used to profit off of using her daughters as underage camgirls (i.e., showing their naked bodies to paying strangers over the internet).
     Podesta's allusion to Osiris is not the only hint that something was off, spiritually, about the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Clinton herself was shown to have mentioned the ancient Caananite Moloch in an e-mail, apparently sarcastically commenting on how her critics seem to regard her as some sort of demon. Clinton may have been making a joke, but her awareness of Moloch is interesting to note.
     Like the Israelis, it looks like John Podesta (and Hillary Clinton, and Tamera Luzzatto) has a lot to distract people from.
     So why not aliens!?

7. Steven Spielberg's E.T. is a Pedophile Grooming Film

     I shouldn't end this article without mentioning the best-known children's film about aliens, the 1982 Steven Spielberg film E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.

     Spielberg, as a reminder, is Jewish-American, and directed the Holocaust film Schindler's List. Spielberg donates to Jewish groups and Holocaust awareness organizations.

     Jewish-American actor Owen Benjamin made several videos in 2019 and 2020, in which he exposed the pedophilia rumors surrounding Steven Spielberg. Benjamin noted that Heather o'Rourke, the star of Poltergeist, died at the age of twelve. Her cause of death was attributed to a congenital colon disorder and Crohn's disease, but the girl's mother said she didn't have that disease. Additionally, the Los Angeles -based coroner who examined the girl's corpse was named “Dr. Frank Sinatra”.

     Benjamin believes that Spielberg, and perhaps some of his associates, anally raped Heather o'Rourke on set, causing her to go into septic shock. Some researchers have published films speculating that Henry Winkler, who had previously worked with o'Rourke on Happy Days, may have lied about how o'Rourke died. Winkler stated that he heard she killed herself.

     There has also been speculation that Spielberg named Amblin Entertainment after N.A.M.B.L.A. (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), and rumors that a drug which appeared in Spielberg's first film Amblin contains references to pedophilia, or at least homosexuality.

     Those rumors, and the Heather o'Rourke death rumors aside, Owen Benjamin explained why he believes that Spielberg's film E.T. is designed to teach pedophiles how to groom children. Benjamin showed several clips of the alien, explaining that he wears a wig, dresses as a woman, and lives in your closet. He also has a magic finger, and he wants to touch you with it. And the ending of the movie is that E.T. saves Elliot during a surgical procedure. The message of the film is that, even if E.T. is ugly, you have to kiss him (like Drew Barrymore does). You have to let him stay in the closet. Your closet, actually! Hide him in a basket and protect him from the cops!

     And you have to let him touch you, because it's for your own good, and it has a legitimate medical purpose!

     If you want to teach your child to distinguish good touch from bad touch, you tell them “nobody is allowed to see you naked, or touch your genitals, unless it's your mommy or your daddy or a doctor, for wiping, or for a medical purpose.” To show an alien touching a child with a magical finger for a medical purpose, to a young impressionable child (who is half-scared-shitless trying to figure out how the fuck E.T. is supposed to be “cute”), negates all possible objections to unwanted touching by an adult.

     Don't want E.T. to touch you? He has to! If he doesn't, you'll die! What, exactly, is the difference between telling a child “If I don't touch you, you'll die”, and “If you don't let me touch you, I'll kill you”?

     Owen Benjamin was right to point out the possibility that E.T. is a pedophile grooming film. Not only because of the reasons I have mentioned; but for several others as well.

     For one, to promote E.T., Knickerbocker toys released an E.T. “finger light” that lights up and glows when you press a button on it. This toy showed up on Lolwot.com's list of “10 of the Most Inappropriate Toys Ever Made”, due to its large size, and arguable resemblance to an adult sex toy (i.e., a dildo).

     http://www.lolwot.com/10-of-the-most-inappropriate-toys-ever-made/

     I'm sorry that I have to say this, but it's difficult to have to think about whether any pedophilic American parent saw E.T., picked up on the film's message, and used this toy to sodomize their child or children. I do not say any of this as a joke; it is unfortunate that we have to consider this possibility.

     Owen Benjamin has also pointed out that later in his life, Spielberg directed A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, starring Jude Law, and Haley Joel Osment. Osment plays a little robot boy who wants to become human. Owen Benjamin notes that on the poster for the film, Jude Law's character is leading the little boy into a giant human mouth. This arguably suggests that the boy is being symbolically eaten alive by pedophiles. It could also be an allusion to oral sex. The fact that the little boy is a robot and becomes friends with an adult man, might also be a reference to sex dolls.

     Something is certainly creepy about Spielberg's E.T. and A.I.. Between the pictures of Spielberg with Drew Barrymore and Heather o'Rourke on each of his knees, and the kid in A.I., and the little girl screaming “Goodbye, Jews” in Schindler's List, it seems that Spielberg is obsessed with children on some level. And that is undoubtedly cause for concern, whether or not there is merit to the idea that he raped Heather o'Rourke to death.

8. Disclaimer: Jews vs. Israel

     I have entertained a lot of unlikely, but also difficult, possibilities in this article. I have Jewish friends and family members, and that is why it pains me to have to consider the possibility that there are so many lies coming out of the State of Israel.
     I want to make myself absolutely clear: The State of Israel does not represent all Jewish people. To admit that it doesn't represent all Jews, is not to say that Jewish people are divided on the issue and therefore vulnerable. Admitting that there is disagreement in the Jewish community over what to do in and with the Holy Land, actually helps dispel harmful stereotypes that Jewish people have more allegiance to Judaism or Israel than to their host countries.
     Those who steal nuclear secrets, or traffic children, or engage in other corrupt or criminal acts, have no religion. People who use violence to promote a political or religious agenda have no religion. If religion is an organized form of spirituality designed to help one live in, and adjust to, the world, and to people of other faiths living upon it, then people who commit illegal and immoral acts in the name of religion are hypocrites and liars.
     That is why, I believe, Jesus said “they are the Synagogue of Satan” in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. He used the term to describe “Those who say they are Jews and are not.” Not all Jewish people are responsible for what Ghislaine Maxwell, or Benjamin Netanyahu, or Jonathan Pollard did, nor for what Steven Spielberg may have done. Only those who say they are Jews but are not. These people use Judaism as a cover for, and a distraction from, their crimes. They deflect criticism by characterizing all criticism of their crimes as an attack upon all Jewish people, or upon the religion.
     None of what I am saying should be construed to disparage the Jewish religion, nor the Jewish people, nor Israeli citizens. I aim only to criticize people in the Israeli government, the Israeli intelligence community and space forces, and certain Jewish-Americans in Hollywood who may be aligned with insidious elements in the State of Israel.
     Those elements are, sorry to say, evidently working to sabotage the United States, through trafficking its children for sex; in order to: 1) seal business and political deals, 2) blackmail people, and 3) use the entertainment industry to sexually groom American children and corrupt their sexual mores.

9. Conclusion

     It's hard to have to consider that Israelis are lying about aliens in order to cover-up the trafficking of children for sex, and the trafficking of nuclear secrets. But that is what I reasonably believe is going on.

     The Israeli plot to spy on the Clinton White House, nearly leaked when the Monica Lewinsky scandal happened. Some believe that she was an Israeli spy. There is widespread agreement among “deep state” or “conspiracy” researchers that an Israeli agent named MEGA had infiltrated the Clinton White House. That agent was almost certainly either Lewinsky, Rahm Emanuel, Leslie Wexner (Epstein's main funding source), or Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was photographed at Chelsea Clinton's wedding while her father was walking her down the aisle. MEGA could also be a reference to the MEGA Group, which Wexner founded.

     It's no coincidence that the 1998 U.S. bombing of Baghdad – about which liberals subsequently conveniently forgot – occurred right as the Lewinsky affair was going public. Even the neo-liberal pro-war propaganda outlet Saturday Night Live acknowledged that the new bombing campaign was a distraction from Lewinskygate.

     Regardless of the identity of MEGA, it's clear that Emanuel was in the Clinton White House, and had previous ties to Israel (through his service in the first Gulf War, and through his father's paramilitary service in the Israeli War of Independence). It's clear that the Israelis had at least several agents attempting to infiltrate the White House. If they didn't need to infiltrate, then they were welcomed inside.

     We need to remember with whom we're dealing here. Ghislaine Maxwell has a submarine company, TerraMar. She has been photographed with Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the two richest men in America, both of them funding private space exploration.

     Whether Epstein is alive or dead, if Ghislaine Maxwell is allowed to escape prison (or get out on work release or supervised visitations), she could potentially hide under the sea or even in space. For all we know, Jeffrey Epstein is waiting for her in a SpaceX or Blue Origin ship, satellite, or space station, compliments of whichever of those two billionaires they supplied with more child sex slaves.

     Maxwell, Podesta, Spielberg, Bezos, and Musk have immense power and wealth (and libido dominandi; the lust or urge to dominate). Who can really say what they're capable of?

     They're certainly capable of lying. They've gotten themselves this far by lying, anyway.

     If they'll lie to save themselves, they'd probably lie to cover for each other, or to distract us from Israel's crimes and its spying on the United States (with which several of our politicians probably assisted them).

     The Israeli government certainly needs good press right about now. Becoming the first country to make contact with alien life-forms – and the first people to join the “Galactic Federation” - would certainly make all nations of the Earth bow down to the Israelis for the rest of time.

     But who would want that? Who would that benefit?

     Are you beginning to understand why Alex Jones keeps talking about "trans-dimensional human-alien-hybrid pedophiles coming down from the fifth dimension"?

     There are no pedophile aliens! Alex Jones probably just got high and watched E.T., and doesn't know how to talk about it!

Written on February 8^th, 2021
Edited on February 16th, 2021

Memes not created by the author.

Second meme added on June 23rd, 2021

Based on notes written on February 5^th, 2021

Self-Interview on Venezuela and Socialism

     1Q: What is the definition of socialism? Is it a political system, or an economic system? Does socialism always lead to communism?

     1A: Socialism is social ownership, or worker control, of the means of production. The means of production include factories, farms, and workplaces. Some socialists may also want to socialize land, and/or railroads, energy, or other utilities. Marx, Lenin, and Khrushchev wanted socialism to lead to communism, but some socialists are more reformist and gradualist, and don't expect communism to come to America. Socialists oppose the personal and private ownership of things that make more sense to own collectively, namely, things that are occupied and used collectively, like housing, workplaces, public utilities, common lands, etc..

     2Q. People say that Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea are the best examples of communist countries. Do you think that is true?

     2A: Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Laos all have markets, so they are not communist (by most accepted definitions of communism). They may have the appearance of communist countries because they are governed by communist parties, or because they have autocracy or one-party rule. But autocracy is not a mandatory feature of communism. Also, if true communism is anarchistic (as anarcho-communists believe), then one-party rule, and political nations in the first place, would logically have nothing to do with communism.
     Most of those countries I would describe as some of the best recent examples of authoritarian communism (a little less so Cuba). China certainly doesn't represent the free communism that Karl Marx envisioned (much less the idea that it would be worldwide, and empower the individual).

     3Q. Are there any countries left in the world that are still socialist? And are there any examples of successful socialist societies, either now or in the past? Are any European countries fully socialist?

     3A: The “Eurosocialist” countries in Europe are really closer to neoliberalism and democratic socialism than they are to full socialism. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are a lot like the United States: they're countries with regulated markets and a robust social safety net. Calling those countries socialist is like calling F.D.R. a socialist, it's an exaggeration.

     Socialist societies have existed, and do exist now, but they are usually short-lived. Sometimes they're destroyed by outside forces, sometimes they became tyrannical and had to be overthrown. Examples include Catalonia, Aragon, and the Mondragon cooperative in 1930s Spain, anarchist Ukraine in the 1930s, and the Paris Communes of 1848 and 1871. The Mondragon cooperative still exists today, and so does Rojava in Kurdistan.

     By the way, I would call Iceland one of the freest countries that exists, and I would also describe it as one of the best examples of both a free socialist and libertarian society.

     4Q. Critics of socialism often say that socialists just want to be lazy, not work, accept handouts, and “steal other people's money” by redistributing the wealth. Do you think that is an accurate description of socialism?

     4A: I think this is a description of the Democratic Party platform, intended to criticize it, and also used as a criticism of socialism, which has some similarities but is not exactly the same thing. The idea that socialists want to steal people's money is not true; it is wealth and opportunity that they want to redistribute, not money.

     Most socialists, communists, and anarchists don't even like the idea of money or currency in the first place, and want to get rid of it. Most socialists would agree that whether our children live or die from an illness should not depend on how much we work for government-printed pieces of paper, stamped with arbitrary values, covered in toxic processing chemicals.

     Socialists and Democrats do both want social welfare, and government assistance, but only the socialists realize in full that the problem is deeper than satisfying our temporary needs, and handouts like Food Stamps are just a temporary solution. What needs to happen is that ordinary people need more opportunities to acquire skills and education, and artificial privilege erected by law with the help of taxpayer dollars needs to be eliminated if we're going to claim that we have a free market and a free, meritocratic society.

     The people in Venezuela are not poor because they lack money; in fact, they have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, because of hyperinflation. They're poor because they lack resources; food, medications, adequate shelter, and other things we need to survive. Socialists understand that if you put too many obstacles - like hard work, and requirements to use money and currency, and pay onerous taxes, and follow overly stringent regulations - between people who are trying to support their families, and the things they need to do in order to do that, then the streets eventually fill up with starving people, sick people, and corpses.
     A society that considers bodies of sick people piling up in the streets "not a problem" or "not my problem" cannot rightfully be called a society.

     5Q. Is the Democratic Party socialist? If not, is anyone in the Democratic Party a socialist? Who are the most socialist-leaning people in American public office today?

     5A: Hillary Clinton is not “far-left”, and neither is Nancy Pelosi. They've both affirmed their commitment to capitalism over socialism. They're two of the most pro- Wall Street Democrats, and they've been used to making deals with Republicans, and corporate lobbyists who pay both sides, for a long long time.

     I think Maxine Waters wants people to think she is a socialist, but I doubt she really is one. Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I think, are the best examples of socialist-leaning politicians in office today.

     6Q. What is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and why do some people think it is socialist?

     6A: The Congressional Progressive Caucus is what's called an ideological congressional member organization (C.M.O.). Basically it's a faction of the Democratic Party. Other factions of the Democrats include the New Democrats, the Blue Dogs, and the Populists, just like the Republicans have the Tea Party Caucus, and several other groups.

     The Congressional Progressive Caucus has for a long time been cited by people on the far right as one of the top groups infiltrating American politics to promote socialism and communism. I understand why they would think that, since the Progressives are the farthest-left faction in the Democratic Party, but Progressive Democrats are not likely to cut off their association with neoliberal Democrats like Clinton and Pelosi until the membership of the Republican Party plummets significantly.

     Progressives would choose a free communist society if they could, and if it were easy, but they are gradualists and reformists, unlike social anarchists and anarcho-communists, so they insist on reform through elections, and that's why they compromise with pro- Wall Street Democrats so much, and, in the eyes of some, sell out their base (working families and the urban poor).

     7Q. What is the difference between a Democrat, a socialist, and a “democratic socialist”? Has America ever had a socialist leader? Were F.D.R., or Teddy Roosevelt, or any other presidents, socialist, or inspired by socialism?

     7A: An American Democratic partisan is not quite a full “one man, one vote” small-”D” democrat. On one hand, American Democrats are steeped in the tradition of American liberal-conservatism, and democratic republicanism. But on the other hand, modern Democrats stray away from the tradition of a liberal society and a limited government, which was the party's platform in the two decades after Reconstruction ended.

     The question surrounding democracy in American government is, fundamentally, “Whose property are we democratically voting on?” Also, “Did people give to the public pot voluntarily, and did they earn that money fairly in the first place?” Socialists know that a business is not competing fairly if it is subsidized and bailed out. But Democrats can't seem to decide how much of the economy should be up to be distributed according to a majority vote.

     The idea that the liberties in the Bill of Rights would ever be put up for a public vote frightens conservatives, libertarians, and even some progressives and nationalists. That is why, in my opinion, it is unlikely that real socialism could take root in America (or, at least, without a revolution), and that's why a lot of people are afraid of it. It would mean a dramatic change in how politics, the economy, and society are run.

     “Democratic socialist” is the term we use to describe people like F.D.R., and Norman Thomas (who inspired him), people who wanted American democracy with socialist influences. The term “democratic socialist” is distinct from “social democrat”, which was a term used to describe German communists in parliament in the early 20^th century. Personally, I think it would make more sense if the terms were flipped.

     8Q. Is Venezuela currently socialist? Did they achieve socialism under Chavez? Was the current crisis in Venezuela caused by socialism, or by something else?

     8A: Venezuela is not quite socialist, because it still has billionaires and private ownership. But it's almost socialist. They were closer to socialism, and more prosperous, under Hugo Chavez.

     Critics of the Venezuelan system arguing that nationalizing oil reserves is automatically socialist, but it's only socialist if the profits are reinvested to benefit the people. And that's what Chavez did – tied oil profits to a citizens' fund - until late in his presidency the value of oil went down, and thus the Venezuelan economy tanked. Tying oil profits to a citizens' dividend, or sovereign wealth fund or permanent fund, is something that's also been tried by Alaska, Norway, and Libya.

     It's true that the country did spend a lot on social welfare when they thought the oil-based economy would continue to succeed. But it did not help that the country was burdened with some 7 million Colombian refugees due to the civil war several decades prior. It also didn't help that, in 2002, the U.S. orchestrated a coup wherein Chavez was kidnapped, and then released and restored to power after two days, after a right-wing opposition backed and funded from Washington, D.C. briefly took control.
     State spending directed towards attempts to fight poverty, which could be described as "socialist", is not the only economic system that's to blame for Venezuela's problems. The profit motive of international capitalist sellers of food, toilet paper, and other necessities, is also partially to blame.
     Some who analyze the situation in Venezuela believe that the country's middle and upper classes' demand for a wider variety of products in stores, has been used to portray the food shortages as worse than they actually are (not that they aren't extremely problematic), and that ensuring a wide variety of foods is not as important as delivering large amounts of staples in order to keep people sufficiently well fed. Big business and media in the country, naturally, benefit from broadcasting demands for their own products, so that explanation seems to hold up to scrutiny, especially considering how problematic intellectual property can be in facilitating free, open, and low-cost international trade.
     Additionally, many Latin American countries, Honduras included, have been plagued with drugs, and the C.I.A. has not only undermined regimes all over Latin America, it has traded drugs for weapons in the course of arming all kinds of rebel groups in order to achieve those ends. Also, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela in 2014 and 2018, after U.S.-Venezuelan relations soured (following Chavez's apparent embrace of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein over George W. Bush, and Venezuela's failure to cooperate enough to fight terrorism in the eyes of the United States).

     So nationalization of oil, civil war, U.S. military interference and economic sanctions, refusal of police to fight violent drug gangs, price controls on food that foreign food sellers have refused to accommodate, and poor prioritization of food needs - as well as poor maintenance of the means of oil extraction - have all been significant causes of Venezuela's problems.
     American "economic imperialism", with the goal of slowing the development of the "resource-cursed" Venezuela (with its huge reserves of oil in the North, the price of which collapsed 70% in 2014, the year after Chavez died) - and a sense of legal entitlement to future profits from sales of consumer goods and everyday needs - are much more responsible for Venezuela's current problems than "socialism" (which, again, means worker control, ownership, or management of the means of production; workplaces, factories, large machines, farms, and maybe other things). There will not be full socialism in Venezuela until no workplace or energy company is owned by a private owner. 
     If Venezuela pursues more disciplined, motivated worker control over energy utilities, becomes successful at ensuring fair health and safety standards at oil extraction facilities, and expands oil refining in its own country, then it will be on the road to energy independence - and with it, economic and political independence - and it will also prove to the world that a socialist economy can be responsible, clean, and self-sufficient. Unfortunately, that will only piss America off (until it finds itself reasonable leadership who don't want to subjugate Venezuela's interests to their own).
     It could be argued that Venezuela's unrestrained social welfare spending in the face of massive temporary profits reflects a socialist desire to spend more in the short-term and overlook long-term problems. But it can also be argued that capitalism is more concerned about short-term gains than socialism, because capitalism has the reputation of prioritizing short-term profits over human lives. To any person with a conscience, the needs of Venezuela to move its most vulnerable citizens out of dire poverty and into acceptable housing, ought to outweigh the needs of Western commodities traders to acquire secondary homes for themselves.

     9Q. What is the difference between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism, and what are some examples of how their economic systems differ from each other? Is Venezuela libertarian-socialist or authoritarian-socialist? Would you describe Hugo Chavez or Nicolas Maduro as autocrats or dictators, or as men of the people?

     9A: Maduro is certainly having a hard time convincing his people that he is one of them, and worthy of Chavez's legacy. Some believe that Maduro displays more autocratic, authoritarian-socialist tendencies than Chavez, whom is viewed as more dedicated to freedom and equality. Or maybe it just appears that way, because the economy was so much more successful under Chavez.
     Maduro has also made attempts to replace the national legislature, and fill the supreme court with people who support him. But in Maduro's defense, he did that in response to the United Socialist Party's December 2015 electoral loss to an opposition made up of many of the same elements as the coup that ousted his predecessor Chavez in 2002 (with the help of the C.I.A.). Carmona, the president installed for two days during that coup, made the same moves that Maduro made some 14 years later: replace the national legislature with a new one, and pack the supreme court.

     Authoritarian socialists use autocracy, centralization of decision-making power, single party rule, price controls, rationing, and quota systems; while libertarian socialists use mutual aid, direct action, voluntary exchange. They also use radical reclamation of stolen property; also called appropriation, or re-appropriation. Re-appropriation is distinct from expropriation, the term Chavez used to justify nationalizing resources in the name of socialism and populism.
     Most libertarian socialists want to avoid expropriation, and are instead focused on achieving both freedom and equality through action that evades the state and tries to make it unnecessary. Authoritarian socialists, on the other hand, believe that freedom is often a threat to equality, and that, therefore, order is necessary to ensure equality. I would recommend that direct food aid continue in Venezuelan society, with or without the government's assistance.

     10Q. Do you think America could ever become socialist? If so, what would it look like? Is there any risk that if America tried socialism, it would end up poor like Venezuela? Why or why not?

     10A: I think the most likely way America could become socialist, at this point, is if Bernie Sanders got elected president, and appointed a cabinet with some more establishment-type Democrats but at least half “democratic socialists” who think more like him.

     But I don't see America approaching real socialism until at least the second term of the presidency of a socialist-leaning politician like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, or Sherrod Brown, and at that, only after significant changes are made to labor law (such as the repeal of most or all of the Taft-Hartley Act, which severely limits the ability to engage in meaningful, coordinated strikes and boycotts).

     There's an outside chance that socialist and communist parties in the U.S. - like Community Party U.S.A., Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Workers' Party, and the Party of Socialism and Liberation - may become more popular, and caucus with the Democrats, and grow the Democrats' coalition to the point where it is unstoppable and stays in the majority, and becomes virtually a single-party-rule system.

     I don't think there's any real risk that America would become anywhere near as poor as Venezuela is right now if it tried socialism. Marx made it clear that the countries where it would be easiest and most practical to achieve socialism are in the more industrialized nations, and the wealthier ones (like America), not the poorer, less industrialized ones (like Venezuela).

     America overproduces all sorts of things: cars, junk food, toys, consumer goods. So why should it be so difficult to afford to buy anything in this country? I think it's because of brand names, bad patent laws, trade subsidies, and protection of “private” property by public police. Socialists understand that violence, and the legal enforcement of the right to profit more and more each year off of one's private property, are the most important thing backing the value of those products, and also the value of our currency.

     There is more than enough to go around in this country, it's just not being distributed right. Take food for example; the U.S. throws away between a third and half of the food it produces every year. Food pantries are full of bread and other things they can't get rid of. The show Extreme Couponing shows us that using coupons right can reduce the price of food by 99%. But even when free food is available, in abundance, people don't always have easy access to it, and the law may require it to be thrown away before it goes bad. Which causes prices to increase.

     We can't afford it, so it goes bad, so they throw it away, so we can't afford it more. Maybe if you send it to us for free, it'll get to us before it spoils! How is mass-produced junk food so expensive, when you couldn't pay me to eat most of it!? You don't need to be a socialist to admit that something's not right here. The problem is that we're valuing obeying the law, and protecting the property and brand of the food producers, over our families' needs to eat.

     11Q. Some people believe that socialism, and free markets or capitalism on the other hand, are incompatible. Do you agree, and why or why not?

     11A: Socialists and communists would like a marketless society if they could have it, because most of them believe that markets, trade, currency, and money are not, and should not be, necessary in a just world.

     But it is not necessary to abolish markets in order to achieve socialism or communism; in fact, there is a proposed economic system called market socialism, in which markets still exist, but what's being bought and sold on the markets would mostly be cooperatively or socially owned, rather than privately owned. Mutualism is a similar system.

     “Market communism” exists too; this is a term that's been applied to the economic system used by Deng Xiaoping in China from the late 70s to the mid-1980s. China opened its markets to foreign investors, and as a result, the largely state-owned, socialized economy, became more balanced against other types of property ownership (private and personal).

     Unfortunately, Deng's regime ended with the Tiananmen Square Massacre, because Deng's regime was not prepared to face the consequences of more economic openness and cultural openness to the West. The people started to demand much more freedom than Deng's regime was willing to accommodate, and China started drifting back towards authoritarian communism, away from a vision of socialism geared towards freedom.

     12Q. Critics of “socialized medicine” warn of rationing and long lines in places like Canada and the U.K.. Do you believe that adopting a socialized, non-profit, or universal health care system in America would improve the state of health in the U.S.? Why or why not?

     12A: That all depends on what "socialized medicine" really means, and whether “universal health care” means universal care or universal insurance. I think the importance of insurance is being overstated, and the importance of health care, and access to health technologies and medications, is overshadowed.

     It would help to get the profit motive out of health insurance, but this issue should not be discussed without also addressing the questions: “Why did we ever repeal the law that prohibited health insurance companies from operating on a for-profit basis in the first place?”, and “Why would a health insurance company agree to cover for a disease that a person already has, when they know they're going to lose that bet?”

     As a member of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party, I'm inspired by both socialist and free-market libertarian ideas. People who study both fields, understand that it's not only the socialization of risks that private owners take that's the problem, it's also a problem that people are not allowed the freedom or opportunity to compete against established producers, and provide better products for better prices and/or better qualities (without being accused of trying to corner the market, or push others out of competition).

     New technologies in pharmaceuticals, and new developments in the way issuers structure health insurance policies, mean that the health industry is, by no means, exempt from those economic lessons. I oppose the individual insurance mandate, and I would support a public option, but I wouldn't ban for-profit health insurance. But people shouldn't assume that banning for-profit health insurance is the best way to achieve positive change in health policy; the main problem isn't that for-profit insurance isn't banned, it's that not-for-profit health insurance is discouraged by the government because the government can't find a way to justify taxing it.

     I would expect that a truly socialist health care system would be managed by a board comprised of doctors, nurses, other health care employees, and medical scientists, in order to fit the “worker control and management” model traditionally associated with socialism. I would want to make sure that patients - the consumers of medications – are also represented, even though they are not hospital workers. Including patients on a board of managers would make a hospital into a consumer-cooperative, instead of a cooperative enterprise.

     13Q. Why did you decide to call your second collection of essays “Soft Communism for 90's Kids”?

     13A: Because I am a 90's kid; I was born in 1987. I was four when the Soviet Union collapsed, so as a result, I didn't grow up being taught to be afraid of the Russians or of communism.

     I was 14 when 9/11 happened, and 20 when the financial crisis of 2007 hit. I've seen a police state steadily growing in my country, and I know we have troops in 4 out of 5 countries around the globe. I honestly have more critical things to say about my own country than I do about our rivals in Moscow. In Virginia, you can get a longer sentence for protesting the government on the wrong section of a public sidewalk, than you can for committing murder. In my opinion, the American police state makes the U.S.S.R. look like they weren't even trying.

     I called my book “Soft Communism for 90's Kids” because people in my age group are not afraid of socialism, the left wing, progressive politics, or anarchism. I wrote the book to inform people about changes to labor law in Wisconsin, my criticism of federal labor laws like the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley, and to introduce the economic systems of Georgism and Mutualism in order to show that there is a bridge between American libertarianism and the radical left after all.

     14Q. What are the names of some of the articles you've written about socialism and labor law?

     14A: Articles I've written about socialism and labor law include “What Liberals and Conservatives Both Get Wrong About Socialism”, “Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law”, “Majority Unionism, Compulsory Unionism, and Compulsory Voting Hurt Workers”, and “Wisconsin and Collective Bargaining: My Journey on Labor Policy”.

     You can read them on my blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com.

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-liberals-and-conservatives-both.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/07/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/11/compulsory-and-majority-unionism-hurt.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/wisconsin-and-collective-bargaining-my.html

Questions Written on December 8th, 2018

Answers Written on December 9th, 2018

Published on December 9th, 2018
Edited and Expanded on December 10th, 11th, and 13th, 2018