Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

I have a serious question: Is transhumanism ACTUALLY possible? In the sense of integrating your mind with AI or flooding your system with nanobots that do all sorts etc.
Yes, but the way transhumanism is portrayed in the media is deceptive. The rush to AI is a cover to get humanity used to the idea of 'fusing with another sentient being,' which is not AI, but 4D STS through AI or outright 4D STS soul possession/replacement. I think the goal is to have a bio-to-bio interface, i.e. fully control humans with a biological remote, much like Grays are controlled by Lizzies.
Q: (L) Going back to the beings that absorb nutrients through their pores, what kind of beings are they?
A: Both those that you describe as the Lizard Beings and those you describe as the Grays. This is necessary for their survival in each case. Even though the Grays are not natural parts of the short wave cycle, but rather an artificial creation by the Lizard Beings, but nevertheless they mimic the nourishment functions.

Q: (L) Since they are artificially created by the Lizard beings, does this mean they have no souls?
A: That's correct.

Q: (L) How do they function? Are they like robots?
A: They function by interaction with the souls of the Lizard beings. This technology is extremely far in advance of that with which you are familiar, but the Gray beings are not only built and designed artificially, but also function as a projection mentally and psychically of the Lizard beings. They are like four dimensional probes.
Q: (TK) Well, we'll never explore all of what is under the ocean. (L) It just staggers the mind to think about it. What do they want these people for?
A: To replace you.

Q: (TK) And why? Because they can control them better. Right?
A: Completely.

Q: (L) Do these people being bred and raised in these underground cities have souls?
A: Yes, most.


Q: (TK) Are they just like us only raised differently?
A: More complicated than that.

Q: (L) How long have they been doing this?
A: 14,000 years, approximately.
A: Bio and cyber/genetic humanoid types now increasing exponentially in general population. You may have already encountered one or two during the past 10 days.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the way transhumanism is portrayed in the media is deceptive. The rush to AI is a cover to get humanity used to the idea of 'fusing with another sentient being,' which is not AI, but 4D STS through AI or outright 4D STS soul possession/replacement. I think the goal is to have a bio-to-bio interface, i.e. fully control humans with a biological remote, much like Grays are controlled by Lizzies.
Okay, this makes more sense. AI and transhumanism as sold are essentially a cover story for human possession by higher dimensional STS Beings.

Someone should tell Joe Rogan. He's busy opening himself up psychically and is also a believer of transhumanism. Not a good combo.

If there goal ever comes to be, will the people being possessed know about it and will they accept it?

Maybe in the beginning it'll be something like portrayed in this movie where it may appear cool?

Trailer


Explanation / spoilers

 
If there goal ever comes to be, will the people being possessed know about it and will they accept it?
They will have accepted the Mark of the Beast, i.e. they will have surrendered their free will. If you think about it, humanity is being reduced to a rather vegetative state. The government wants to control what you eat, where you go, what you watch, what you say, who you talk to, and even what you think about... all for your 'benefit'.

Humans don't need 'accessories' to function properly, but many were fooled and allowed these 'accessories' to become part of their identity. A being that needs so many 'add-ons' to fill its existential void is, in fact, asking for trouble, because it is telling the universe that it is unable to guide itself through life. And there is a plethora of beings ready to step into an 'empty' vessel. After all, it's a battle for souls, and ideologies are particularly virulent!
 
Well, these are your words, but he makes no such distinctions. For him it's all liberalism. The current collective identity that liberalism is against is gender, the next, humanity itself.

But you said it yourself, these are neo-liberals. So, I'd say, liberals in name only.

I don't think his analysis of history pitting rali against nominalism is an adequate explanation of things. Things seem to be much more complex and what seems to be missing is the understanding that there are forces of evil that will use whatever means suit them at a given time to further their agenda of dehumanising the human race.

I think this whole divide between liberals and conservatives, left and right, is a distraction from the real culprits. Evil forces have been seen taking all sides of the spectrum at different times and different locations, always using the prevailing public opinion and grievances to get us proles to support their hasnamussian ideas, which inevitably led to misery for the proles.

Just look at us here on the forum. We've been mostly left leaning until the spectrum shifted and we turned right. Now we find ourselves again on the same side with some of the left when it comes to Israel. At the same time, the left is all pro Ukraine.

In my opinion, these political spectrum dichotomies are completely useless for people who are sincerely trying to get to the truth and stand with the truth on any given issue.

It's interesting to read these historical analyses, don't get me wrong, but I've had enough of the divisions. Reading about liberalism, you'd think the opposite was the good side, but then you look at the fruits of conservatism and you see only more of the same sort of destructive social and political experiments.

These sorts of divisions open the door for phenomena such as JBP supporting genocide and we here at the forum supporting a lumbering fool like Trump just because we're alligned with one part of they represent. Of course, the Trump thing is much more complex, but he is a fool and not someone whose positions I would think to support until the woke mob went after him.

Just remembered James Lindsey being all up in arms about Gnosticism of all things. If you follow these divisions, you inevitabely end up believing and supporting lies.

That's why I don't have much faith in anything better coming out of the East in the coming decades as the West declines and Russia and China come up on top. It may look like one thing now, but it will inevitably turn into the opposite of itself very soon. The only hope lies with regular people aligning with the truth and continually realiging with the truth, but I don't see much hope for that either when I observe the level of discourse among the general population. It's bloody hopeless.

Not to end on a bummer, I think we need to look to ourselves, strive to better ourselves and then the small circle around us. That's all. I would even argue to withdraw from any discussions about these topics with the general population. You can only get yourself mired in the mud. Even the ones who may seem to understand will misunderstand and end up believing a whole different set of lies, such as wild conspiracy theories or worse.

Ok, that's another bummer. Anyway, there's hope, but only at an individual level and the level of this network. Anything outside of that is the wastelands if you ask me. I don't even read SOTT anymore. I can't stand to look at the comments. And I've been one of those lost souls spewing bullshit on the interwebs once.

Haven't posted in awhile here. Lots of thoughts stewing. Apologies for the rant. Happy Friday folks!

Sounds like a lot of negative anticipation to me. Everyone is ignorant, there's no good in the world, and lies are inescapable. In other words, the world isn't the way you want it to be, people aren't who you want them to be, so it's all hopeless. No disrespect meant, but it seems like you're still one of 'the lost souls on the interwebs spewing bullshit'. Probably not all the time, but in these last few paragraphs, definitely.

I can understand the sentiment, as there's plenty in the world that makes my blood boil and absolutely disgusts me. But if I'm not careful, I can let the petty tyrants lead me away from discernment and into judgment, closing my heart and eyes to any goodness in the world. And then I stop being the change I want to see in the world. That's not the fault of the world or the petty tyrants, it's a matter of me letting lower emotions darken my perception, and the choices that follow from that perception.

The C's lay out the challenge for us all, when speaking about 3D as an orchestra:

A: No, you don't get to pick the selection at this level. But you in the future does. The question is: How well do you play, and can you play true if the others don't?
 
Sounds like a lot of negative anticipation to me. Everyone is ignorant, there's no good in the world, and lies are inescapable. In other words, the world isn't the way you want it to be, people aren't who you want them to be, so it's all hopeless.
No, not at all.

The vast majority are hopelessly ignorant, and even when they're not ignorant about one thing, they're ignorant about a bunch of other things. I just don't see that changing in due time. To achieve some, however small, degree of objectivity one must seriously do the Work for a significant length of time. I personally don't know many people who even have an inclination for that outside of this network. Just reading any comment section on the internet tells you everything you need to know.

I don't know what the world is supposed to be but I would venture to say that it's supposed to be exactly what it is and I don't think it can be anything other than what it is at the moment, at least for the foreseeable future.

It's absolutely not hopeless, though. There's plenty of good people out there, even if they're ignorant, but I have no hope in the world being better. I have hope in myself becoming better and bettering my immediate surroundings. I think that's the most any of us can hope for. And that hope exist only at the level of the individual and this here network. I have no interest in fixing the world as it doesn't need fixing.
No disrespect meant, but it seems like you're still one of 'the lost souls on the interwebs spewing bullshit'. Probably not all the time, but in these last few paragraphs, definitely.
If that's how you feel, I may have failed in expressing myself accurately.
I can understand the sentiment, as there's plenty in the world that makes my blood boil and absolutely disgusts me. But if I'm not careful, I can let the petty tyrants lead me away from discernment and into judgment, closing my heart and eyes to any goodness in the world. And then I stop being the change I want to see in the world. That's not the fault of the world or the petty tyrants, it's a matter of me letting lower emotions darken my perception, and the choices that follow from that perception.
I've had this issue since adolescence. I think I'm done with it now. The world is what it is and it's here for a reason. And I'm here to learn something. No judgement. I've got stuff to do that can actually affect things positively. Dwelling on the injustices of this world does me no favours.
 
It seems to me that one important point is missing from the discussion. The biggest problem with liberalism may not be liberalism per se, though maybe it is and people like Tucker who considers himself liberal (of the classical type) are just exceptions thanks to their well developed moral endoskeleton. The problem lies in how it was exploited and what is the result of feeding the masses with ideas supposedly derived directly from liberal ideology. First, the word "liberal", sugared with another fancy word "freedom", was promoted as a top value. Reject religion, it's "opium for masses"; reject feudal hierarchy, it keeps you enslaved; reject the state, it exploits you; reject family, it's based on hierarchy; eventually, liberate yourselves from all categories others may prescribe to you, from any ties and bonds, and all that matters is you and how you perceive yourself. Slowly cooking the proverbial frog until the individual is completely isolated in their own individual reality.

There are no communities whos good would matter for such persons more than themselves, hence we have the new word "collective" - "a group dedicated to a particular cause or interest"; that's not the same as community, "a group sharing common characteristics, such as the same language, law, religion, or tradition". It's an utilitarian entity, possibly temporary, with no old-fashion bonds based on common history, centuries long culture and so on. No responsibility for each other, no caring

There are several internal contradictions, or inconsistencies, on the way, but we are dealing with mass psychology with its own laws.

What we get is sets (not groups) of individuals speaking the same words and demanding everything possible for themselves. The majority is set up not only against those sets, but also against "liberal values" and freedom. And who can argue with those two?

The question not answered yet is of a similar nature as the question of fundamental physical constants. Did Nominalism (assuming there is a merit to Dugin's theory), or just old good classical liberal ideology, ultimately have to lead to such an outcome, or was it avoidable? Given how our history has been developing and who rules this world - hardly, I think. And it seems almost a miracle that, at least for now, it stopped at the Russian-Ukrainian border. And some others, looking at different directions of its spreading.

IF so, then that would mean, that there is something quite different about the "collective Western" population that allowed it or about the Western elites who managed to achieve it. But this is a different topic.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that one important point is missing from the discussion. The biggest problem with liberalism may not be liberalism per se, though maybe it is and people like Tucker who considers himself liberal (of the classical type) are just exceptions thanks to their well developed moral endoskeleton. The problem lies in how it was exploited and what is the result of feeding the masses with ideas supposedly derived directly from liberal ideology. First, the word "liberal", sugared with another fancy word "freedom", was promoted as a top value. Reject religion, it's "opium for masses"; reject feudal hierarchy, it keeps you enslaved; reject the state, it exploits you; reject family, it's based on hierarchy; eventually, liberate yourselves from all categories others may prescribe to you, from any ties and bonds, and all that matters is you and how you perceive yourself. Slowly cooking the proverbial frog until the individual is completely isolated in their own individual reality.

There are no communities whos good would matter for such persons more than themselves, hence we have the new word "collective" - "a group dedicated to a particular cause or interest"; that's not the same as community, "a group sharing common characteristics, such as the same language, law, religion, or tradition". It's an utilitarian entity, possibly temporary, with no old-fashion bonds based on common history, centuries long culture and so on. No responsibility for each other, no caring

There are several internal contradictions, or inconsistencies, on the way, but we are dealing with mass psychology with its own laws.

What we get is sets (not groups) of individuals speaking the same words and demanding everything possible for themselves. The majority is set up not only against those sets, but also against "liberal values" and freedom. And who can argue with those two?

The question not answered yet is of a similar nature as the question of fundamental physical constants. Did Nominalism (assuming there is a merit to Dugin's theory), or just old good classical liberal ideology, ultimately have to lead to such an outcome, or was it avoidable? Given how our history has been developing and who rules this world - hardly, I think. And it seems almost a miracle that, at least for now, it stopped at the Russian-Ukrainian border. And some others, looking at different directions of its spreading.

IF so, then that would mean, that there is something quite different about the "collective Western" population that allowed it or about the Western elites who managed to achieve it. But this is a different topic.
It's always down to the people at the individual level. What will they do with it?

Take the forum for example. There would be none of this without liberalism. We are free to analyse and criticise religion, even create one of our own. We can associate with people from different cultures. We can even say very bad things about the powers that be. We can criticise the state and the economic system. We even critique the family itself as a source of much trauma and suffering. I don't think we're wrong to do any of those things.

Others use their freedom for less noble endeavours and that, little by little leads to chaos. It's up to society to temper these tendencies. If the society of individuals is more and more prone to such expressions of their freedom, than that's their prerogative. Even if these choices are manipulated, they're still ultimately the choices of the individuals themselves. It's always up to the individual.

The alternative is some kind of top down controlled society. Fascism, communism, theocracy, despotism. I'm not too keen on that, personally.
 
It's always down to the people at the individual level. What will they do with it?

Yes and no. Yes, when it comes to personal responsibility, moral or legal. No, when we're faced with an outcome of manipulated crowd behaviour, a mass whos elements have no working conscience, no awareness, no understanding and no will to change it. Instead, they demand that the rest of humanity adjusts to their delusions. It's upon others to save any sanity left and not be swept away to become new pariahs living in underground sewer systems (sorry for the dystopian vision).

Have you noticed that every revolution is in the name of "liberty" or another equally noble idea? There is a great book written by Everett Dean Martin in 1920, "Behavior of Crowds" and its abridged version titled "Mob mind vs civil Liberty". Different times, different struggles and ideologies, but the patterns and psychology remain the same. Here is a quote:

For instance, there is liberty. Every crowd demands it when it is seeking power; no crowd permits it when it is in power. A crowd which is struggling for supremacy is really trying to free itself and as many people as possible from the control of another crowd. Naturally, the struggle for power appears to consciousness as a struggle for liberty as such. (...) We have had occasion to note the intolerance of the crowd-mind as such. A revolutionary crowd, with all its lofty idealism about liberty, is commonly just as intolerant as a reactionary crowd. It must be so in order to remain a crowd. Once it is triumphant it may exert its pressure in a different direction, but the pinch is there just the same. Like its predecessor, it must resort to measures of restraint, possibly even a "reign of terror," in order that the new-won "liberty"—which is to say, its own place at the head of the procession—may be preserved. The denial of freedom appears therefore as its triumph, and for a time people are deceived. They think they are free because everyone is talking about liberty.

Eventually some one makes the discovery that people do not become free just by repeating the magic word "liberty." A disappointed faction of the newly emancipated humanity begins to demand its "rights." The crowd hears its own catchwords quoted against itself. It proceeds to prove that freedom exists by denouncing the disturbers and silencing them, if necessary, by force. The once radical crowd has now become reactionary. Its dream of world emancipation is seen to be a hoax. Lovers of freedom now yoke themselves in a new rebel crowd so that oppressed humanity may be liberated from the liberators. Again, the will to power is clothed in the dream symbols of an emancipated society, and so on around and around the circle, until people learn that with crowds freedom is impossible. For men to attain to mastery of themselves is as abhorrent to one crowd as to another. The crowd merely wants freedom to be a crowd—that is, to set up its own tyranny in the place of that which offends the self-feeling of its members.

We know that it's just one layer, though absolutely real and already bad enough; then there are also agitators, skilled screenwriters and puppet masters behind those crowds with their own nefarious agendas, so that the crowds become their tool and toll.

Take the forum for example. There would be none of this without liberalism. We are free to analyse and criticise religion, even create one of our own. We can associate with people from different cultures. We can even say very bad things about the powers that be. We can criticise the state and the economic system. We even critique the family itself as a source of much trauma and suffering. I don't think we're wrong to do any of those things.

But it's not us who are the problem, that's them. Or so we think, and some others like us.

Of course, evaluations differ depending on one's aim and values, but we are here together because we share both. So now, more seriously, if there was everything wrong/evil about a doctrine, ideology, programme installed, nobody would buy it, don't you think?

The result, as I see it, is like this, simplified to the max: a minority (how big, would be a good question) has bought it, got programmed and causes a lot of problems to others. Another minority has not bought it and is terrified by the direction part of the world is taking. Majority - I think it's still majority - is oblivious to any of these problems and doesn't care any further than the tip of their nose and goes with the flow.

It's the bigger picture that is most disturbing and we're in a process of figuring out if there is a connection between the factors and approaches we are aware of. We want to know which are the best fitting theories/explanations and see the turning points with no return - so that we ourselves can avoid custom-made pitfalls, have a chance to notice a snow ball up there before it becomes an avalanche and swallows us, and finally, be better equipped when - if it ever going to happen - setting up a new and better world.

And as for the bolded sentence, how can you know what this world would be like if there was no liberal ideology invented? Maybe there would be nothing to criticise? Maybe there would be liberty without liberalism, and no need to liberate anyone from liberals? My point is that it is a fat assumption on your part; not that there is no possibility of it being as you said, but it's important to be aware of assumptions been made for the sake of argument. In other words, you quietly assume that liberalism is good and then you follow with what you present as its benefits, the same time listing many things that are not 'good' yet smoothly dismissing them with a wave as if it was self-evident that they have nothing to do with it. But this we don't know.
 
I have a serious question: Is transhumanism ACTUALLY possible? In the sense of integrating your mind with AI or flooding your system with nanobots that do all sorts etc.

My view is transhumanism is limited to stuff like augmenting physical capabilities e.g. via an exoskeleton, replacing limbs for people who have lost them, better monitoring of biomarkers etc but certainly not integrating your mind with AI, transferring consciousness etc.

IMO, that's it in a nutshell.

Look at "AI". It's nowhere near real AI as far as I can tell. It's machine learning run amok, so much so that people are creating memes saying, "I don't want AI to make art and write books, I want to make art and write books while AI does the laundry and the dishes for me!"

Corporations also believe that it's a great way to make even more money. Seriously, do they actually believe everyone will run out and buy a new smartphone with an "AI-enabled processor" and 10's of GB of extra storage space just so they can have useless conversations with their phone? Microsoft stuck "AI" in Windows, and everyone's turning it off!

I don't completely discount the possibility that we will see some really far out sci-fi stuff in the coming years, but I think if it does happen, it will be more about control via 4D STS and their tech driving the show - not some glorious 3d invention from the likes of Musk et al.

But hey, if they can get you to agree to full monitoring, full censorship, and even full control based on some crude 3d implant, you've just given away your free will and they can do whatever they want with you.
 
Corporations also believe that it's a great way to make even more money. Seriously, do they actually believe everyone will run out and buy a new smartphone with an "AI-enabled processor" and 10's of GB of extra storage space just so they can have useless conversations with their phone? Microsoft stuck "AI" in Windows, and everyone's turning it off!
Scottie, are you saying this new AI powered toothbrush isn't the real deal? :lol:


Yeah, the AI thing is marketing gimmick at this stage, but like you said, the main goal is to get people giving up their free will. It could be just some smart glasses combined with microphone and practical UI, that plugs people straight to wikipedia etc controlled mainstream propaganda sources so they can feed them with lies even more in real time. I think we could see something like this fairly soon.
 
Others use their freedom for less noble endeavours and that, little by little leads to chaos. It's up to society to temper these tendencies. If the society of individuals is more and more prone to such expressions of their freedom, than that's their prerogative. Even if these choices are manipulated, they're still ultimately the choices of the individuals themselves. It's always up to the individual.
With the small drawback that an underground society with unimaginable technology doesn't give a damn about the individual on the surface, and they must find it very funny that the individual on the surface thinks he chooses something.

Of course there are other forces and some balance with that, but it is still without the surface individual knowing anything.

It seems strange to me that in these debates this factor is always forgotten, unless you don't believe in it, of course.
 
Yes, but the way transhumanism is portrayed in the media is deceptive. The rush to AI is a cover to get humanity used to the idea of 'fusing with another sentient being,' which is not AI, but 4D STS through AI or outright 4D STS soul possession/replacement. I think the goal is to have a bio-to-bio interface, i.e. fully control humans with a biological remote, much like Grays are controlled by Lizzies.

People know... Even if they take it as a joke... this appeared 4 days ago on youtube.

Microscopic binding magic


We must be more vigilant than ever.

1715126057701.png
 
IMO, that's it in a nutshell.

Look at "AI". It's nowhere near real AI as far as I can tell. It's machine learning run amok, so much so that people are creating memes saying, "I don't want AI to make art and write books, I want to make art and write books while AI does the laundry and the dishes for me!"

Corporations also believe that it's a great way to make even more money. Seriously, do they actually believe everyone will run out and buy a new smartphone with an "AI-enabled processor" and 10's of GB of extra storage space just so they can have useless conversations with their phone? Microsoft stuck "AI" in Windows, and everyone's turning it off!

I don't completely discount the possibility that we will see some really far out sci-fi stuff in the coming years, but I think if it does happen, it will be more about control via 4D STS and their tech driving the show - not some glorious 3d invention from the likes of Musk et al.

But hey, if they can get you to agree to full monitoring, full censorship, and even full control based on some crude 3d implant, you've just given away your free will and they can do whatever they want with you.

I think McGilchrist makes a number of good points about AI throughout his latest book “The matter with things“. Points that pretty much go against the grain. In a nutshell, he argues convincingly that much of what we are told about AI sounds like a rather strange “left brain“ logic/reasoning.
 
Tucker interviews a fellow who sounds like a ne'er-do-well in his twentied, getting kicked out a law internship, getting fired by his father from the family company, and making a living by writing 4 million seller books about frat-style partying and sex. The conversation is about that journey to where he is married, has children, and is 'homesteading' in Texas raising all his own food(or most of it). Plus a political awakening, cultural awakening and a spiritual/religious awakening. I found the interview a fascinating listening, even at x1.5 speed.
Since Rumble can't be embedded, I'm pasting it in
_Advice to Men: Reject Sex, Parties, and Fame. Embrace God Instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom