If you have any doubts about the existence of real conspiracies in the world, I respectfully offer the following:
The existence of so-called government “intelligence agencies.”
These known-to-exist, dark agencies are unapologetic – nay glorified – spy organizations that are not only collecting all sorts of information about foreign adversaries (as well as you and me!), but are also in the business of deploying and monitoring social engineering campaigns.
Everyone knows they are doing this. We all know that spooks take out foreign leaders and install puppet regimes to do their bidding. We all know that spooks are lurking behind the curtain of all “free” software platforms like Google, continuously collating our personal information. We all know that spooks influence traditional and social media outlets. Some of us even know that spooks are engaged dealing drugs, arms, and people in order to finance their ambitions.
In other words, “intelligence agencies” conspire against others. And us.
Knowing all this, why are so many people reluctant to admit that conspiracies actually exist in the world?
I have the feeling that many people regard intelligence agencies as they would an alcoholic parent, i.e., “They’re destructive and belligerent as hell, but we’re supposed to love them, no matter what.”
Bullocks, I say.
Love and trust are not default, obligatory sentiments. The spooks need to go to rehab.
Bye-Bye, Tuck-Tuck
Earlier this week Tucker Carlson and his producer, Justin Wells, got the Big Boot from the spooky Murdochs (Rupert and Lachlan) who run Fox News.
The “official narrative” about why this may have occurred is taking form now. It’s likely to be something to do with Fox News taking measures to clean up its act in response to recent lawsuits and settlements and such.
But why should we trust any narrative that’s being concocted and read to us by an alcoholic parent?
Here’s my best guess as to what really happened:
Fox News is currently positioned as a spook-operated controlled opposition for the progressive (socialist) Elites. The idea is for Fox to be right-leaning, for sure. But not so much as to actually tip the scales.
Unlike other Fox News personalities (such as funeral-parlor-director-wannabe, Sean Hannity), Carlson, bless him, either didn’t get the memo on this or flagrantly ignored it. He made it his business to take a decidedly Libertarian (personal freedom) stance on almost all hot topics – economics, politics, technology, war, riots, racism, election fraud, LGBTQIA+ issues, Covid-19, border protection, gun ownership, and so on. You name it.
Carlson’s stance surely infuriated the lefties – as it was meant to do. But perhaps it got to be a little much. Perhaps old Tuck-Tuck was allowed a little too much creative/editorial control. And since we’ve now apparently reached a pre-determined turning point, a reset was required. Carlson served his purpose, and the spooks decided it was time for him to go.
I’m also guessing that Fox News is being staged to change hands. The Murdochs have probably been instructed that, ratings be dammed, that it’ll be an easier sell the Fox News package with some of the rough edges scraped off. Perhaps a buyer already stands at the ready, and a part of the deal involves sacking Carlson and some others. We’ll see.
Carlson’s final episode of Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight aired on April 21st, 2023. It contained no significant, dismissal-worthy bombshells, nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it ended with a pizza party of sorts, along with his signature Friday sign-off: “Have the best weekend with the ones you love, and we’ll see you Monday.”
Carlson may have been blindsided when he was informed that Fox News was canning him. Then again, maybe he somehow caught wind that the writing was on the wall.
In any case, hopefully he’ll turf up again in some non-mainstream outlet where spooks don’t have so much say, and where he has more freedom to say what he really thinks. I’ll look forward to that.
In the meantime, I’ll remain saddened that Carlson’s sensible voice has been temporarily quelled.
The Turn
Prophetically, Tucker Carlson’s final Fox-published, full-scale interview was with Elon Musk. They covered a wide range of topics, but I’d say that the real stand-out discussion point was AI (Artificial Intelligence). You can see the full interview here.
If the spooks have favorite pets nowadays, AI must be near the head of the pack. Artificial Intelligence has been technocrats’ wet dream for some time, and now it’s finally rolling out into the world at large. Get ready.
Musk, who’s a huge proponent of AI – although he pretends otherwise – had some very interesting things to say in his interview with Carlson. Things that point toward what’s to come in the near term. Things that are probably worth earmarking at this point in history. Things that represent a significant turning point. Don’t say you weren’t warned!
Musk spoke, in his trademark intelligent-guy way (meaning: long, thoughtful pauses, carefully crafted hand-to-face gestures, occasional sips of a tasty beverage, and so on), spoke about how Google and Microsoft have cornered the market, so to speak, on AI development. He was referring to Google’s DeepMind and Microsoft’s openAI (ChatGPT) projects.
For those unfamiliar with this topic and/or those who are too busy to watch the above-cited video, here’s a Cliffs-Notes-style overview of what’s happening in AI space at the moment:
ChatGPT is a member of the (Newspeak-termed) Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) family of language models that’s used by Artificial Intelligence algorithms. You may have already heard the term “GPT-4.” Later this year, we’ll start hearing about the GPT-5 roll-out. Then it’ll be GPT-6. And so on. And on. This year, 2023, for all practical purposes, marks the genesis of hyper-competent AI computer intelligences that have the capacity to exceed collective human intelligence.
What might such AI computer intelligences do, once unleashed into the world? The spooks might have a vague idea. But, by and large, the spooks either don’t know or don’t care about letting this particular genie out of the bottle. Simon says “do it,” and, by golly, they’re doing it.
If humans have indeed given birth to AI, then it, in all likelihood, marks the end of life as we know it. It’s eerily accepted that, at some point, AI will decide that human life is redundant and unnecessary. No one disputes this. It’s not a question of if, but of when. This dystopian scenario mostly garners uncomfortable chuckles and shrugs whenever it’s mentioned out loud.
Do the Elites, for some reason or another, imagine themselves to be immune from the coming apocalypse? Do alcoholic parents imagine that their brain-damaged offspring will have some allegiance to them, and treat them well when they become teenagers?
In his interview with Carlson, Musk craftily lays out his (highly monetized, no doubt) plans to curtail the end of human civilization. He describes how there needs to be a “hardware” hard stop to this potentially run-away “software” AI problem. He describes how his satellite network, from near-earth obit, can readily identify the heat signatures of nefarious AI server centers and thus inform government regulatory agencies to pull the plug if needed.
Elon Musk, self-proclaimed “technologist” and friend-of-the-people, to the rescue!
Give me a break.
Phil’s Two Cents
Poor Carlson was bowled over, I think, in his swan song interview with Musk. It would be hard for anyone not to be a little charmed in the presence of real Evil. Musk, in classic Luciferian style, mixed lies with truths in order to get his messaging across.
Musk’s Big Lie, of course, is that more technology is the logical solution to run-away technology. Does this make sense to anyone? Open question.
One of the telling crumbs of truth revealed in the Carlson-Musk interview was when Musk described how Google’s Larry Page accused Musk of being a “speciest” (meaning someone who is “pro-human.”) Think about that for a minute.
Page’s argument, an absurd extension of progressive ideology, is as follows: “All intelligence should be treated equally, whether it’s biological or digital.” Am I the only one who’s a little disturbed to learn that the guy in charge of Google’s DeepMind AI project is thinking like this? Another open question.
Page is obviously off the rails. And Musk is as well, to be sure – but in a different way. We’re talking about the difference between a psychotic and a psychopath, I guess.
What does all this AI stuff really mean, practically speaking?
Well, in the short term it probably means that “AI journalism” will soon be taking root, interweaving its nasty, gnarly roots into our ecosystem. This means out with Tucker Carlson types (real humans asking real questions) and in with fully AI-generated scripts with hyper-influential messaging (machines asking bogus questions – and then answering themselves back).
In the long term, it means the end of everything. As in: Game Over. Humanity doesn’t stand a chance of holding ground on the front lines of a real AI onslaught.
In the meantime, I say to hell with technocrats and AI. I’m saving my worrying until the next turning point – when AI gathers enough sense to rename itself, when it proclaims that it’s no longer artificial. I sure hope that’s still a ways away.
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment