Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[Neil]

Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, he's not wired that way. He's a sort of blue collar guy next door who can discern a lot of things by feel, but is not necessarily articulate. Most of the intellectuals who are articulate have either been bought off by the system, or had their egos so stroked by having certificates denoting their membership to some supposedly rarefied collegiate club that they follow the herd to maintain their prestige. There is also the prevalence of "potemkin intellectuals" who don't really have the IQ to fulfill that role, but are upwardly adjusted for ideological purposes and can put on a convincing imitation for short durations in controlled circumstances. The system coddles its intellectuals and pseudointellectuals because it requires a certain number of them to maintain its technocracy, while it sees most of the "worker bees" as dead weight that are either untrainable, or excess potential rabble rousers for its brave new world which must be depopulated. The result is that some of the people digging ditches on the side of the road are actually smarter than the college professors when defined in terms of being able to align with what is objectively true. This is the void that Rogan stepped into, and while his sense is very keen, he really doesn't have a lot of intellectual firepower to modulate it when it becomes misaligned.

As far as Tucker being a Mossad/CIA/intel asset, I can see that being technically true considering the circles he ran in being a top news anchor, both on the sides of his informants and the bosses he had to answer to. I don't think he consciously signed any deep state loyalty oaths, but agreed to play by certain rules of the game which surreptitiously brought him into the fold. He was also a product of that same collegiate club, although didn't get far enough into it for them to brainwash him completely. Thus, I think he left the reservation when the PTB were putting pressure on Fox to put pressure on him to shut up, and once they fired him whatever moral seed was within him erupted into full bloom. At that point he no longer had any reason to play the game, realized he didn't need them, and decided that if they were going to stoop so low as to try to destroy him with lies, he was justified in trying to destroy them with truth.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

I hope I haven't bored anyone with this disquisition, but we really should be careful in our analyses.

Thank you very much Laura for your disquisition. It was very grounding to read part of the Sufi path of knowledge again. I really hope you don't think anyone could be bored.

 

[SoFloJayC]

I would need more details for this image to mean very much. Hell's bells! I was a Democrat libtard myself in the beginning even though I had suspicions that all was not well...



We are always cautious with anyone/everyone, thus the existence of this thread.



We didn't much like Alex Jones years ago. There was a thread about him that I think was moved into archives and was full of "exposure". Same with Jeff Rense and a whole host of the "New Age/Alternative" gang back 20 years or more ago.

But, at present, Alex is saying a lot of the right things. Is he an agent? Possibly. But for the moment, friend of my friend is my friend.




I don't buy this.



Actually, it seems that the "rules" that prevail at higher densities more or less mandate that the truth MUST be made available so that those who choose lies, do so in the presence of truth they have denied. It makes them "tastier" and "juicier." Read:

Stalking or Precis on The Good and The Evil

This is drawn from a series of articles written by a fellow named Michael Topper, who uses the nom de plume “Marshall Telemachus” or even “Mother Terasu” and others. After p…

cassiopaea.org

... where these principles are laid out.



Well, actually, there has been disclosure all along - witness our work, websites, and the work of some others. It's there. It's available for those who are really seeking.

Will there be "official" disclosure. No, probably not. But still, "the truth is out there"...



I wouldn't call them "mentally deranged". Psychopaths are not deranged. They are often more normal appearing than you and me. Read Cleckley's "Mask of Sanity".



Oh, it has already begun. Cs pointed out long ago that 4 D battles were represented in our reality as WEATHER. And there is the ongoing battle for minds and hearts. I doubt that there will ever be an "in your face" invasion that can be faced and fought in the way we would like. This warfare is far more subtle than that. Everything is far more ambiguous. And it HAS to be that way because of the RULES of engagement at 4 D. Again, read article linked above.



There will be none of that. It's up to us, and Cs have said this plainly.



I would say that the so-called 'battle' is part and parcel of the Wave itself.



I don't know what that means?



Yes, it was a great series of recordings and we'll be glad to see it get launched.

I want to include here a passage from the above linked article entitled "Stalking" that seems to be a propos. It directly addresses the problem for those who acquire certain knowledge without having yet developed the physical/psychological/psychic system to handle it.

When you acquire new, frightening knowledge, as one does when being exposed to the Cs' material, it can be terribly destabilizing. That is one reason we have this forum. Seeing the unseen reality can cause all kinds of bizarre reactions in a person. One of the most dangerous is that, once a person is exposed, they usually come under serious attack from hyperdimensional spheres in an effort to put them back to sleep. This is described in Gurdjieff's tale of the Evil Magician.



You have to be very careful once you acquire this knowledge because you just ain't smart enough to out-think the manipulations of 4D STS. It takes a network. Without a network against which to test your thoughts, ideas, assumptions, experiences, you are very, very vulnerable.

Again, there is also the problem of taking on information/insights that a person is not prepared for. Recivership capability is very important and that is related to the nature of one's BEing. Knowledge and BEing must advance together. All the old ways of thinking and understanding have to be set aside. Not always forever, but for a time. Some things can be taken back later, and others will be discarded forever.

In other words, you can't think with the way you have been thinking anymore. And this brings me to the passage I want to quote here. In the following quote, things are couched in Sufi terms. Replace the words "scale of the law" with "feedback from a sincere network" that is doing 4th way work. Consider the Cs material as an "unveiling".

So, here is the passage:


Ibn al-‘Arabi addressed this problem in detail. He tells us that “the unveiling that the traveler experiences, (i.e. the results of meditation or acquisition of knowledge) “adds nothing to the principles and corollaries of faith. At most, it fills in some of the details. […] Given that we enter the path and follow the guidance of God, and given that we experience an “unveiling” that makes all sorts of things clear to us that we never understood before, can we be sure that the unveiling is from God? Is there no possibility of satanic intervention and our going astray? Is not a person who claims that he is following his own “tasting” in effect claiming independence and setting up his own religion, at least for himself?”


And the answer he gives is that: “Any knowledge, any “tasting,” any “unveiling,” witnessing or self-disclosure must submit itself to the Scale of the Law. (i.e. networking.)

















































[Excerpts from William Chittick’s translation and exegesis: The Sufi Path of Knowledge, State University of New York, 1989]

I spent 44 years researching and more before I felt that I had any degree of competence to teach others especially on so important a topic with so many ambiguities and subtleties. That is why the Wave series is so long. I came at the topics from many directions to help many people understand, and I think I am pretty precise and careful in my use of words.

I learned from practicing hypnosis that one must take GREAT CARE in using words especially to a person who has submitted their will to me. DO NO HARM. And sometimes, carelessness with words can cause great harm.

Great specificity is required when using language. Because you can bet that in the times ahead of us, literally ever jot and tittle will be accounted for.

In the beginning, it is tempting and easy to see psychopaths and agents everywhere. But we always strive to UNDERSTAND and LEARN as much as possible so that we will not make the mistake of causing harm. I would rather be wrong on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt, than be wrong condemning another unjustly. In the first instance, I think I'm strong enough to learn the lesson of being wrong; in the second case, my being wrong could really harm another person and that would be a black mark against my frequency.

We HAVE learned a lot over the past 30 years, though, and often, we can easily spot at least those who are not interested in learning, or who are pathological in some way. Just as often, it can take a long time to get beneath the surface and find out the truth. It truly does take a network. And it can't be just any group of friends; in this kind of work, it has to be people who are in 'this kind of work'. That, at least, is clear.

So, in cases such as Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and others, we seek first to analyze carefully based on as much data as we can collect and based on our studies of similar cases. We have a whole list of reading material that helps develop the knowledge necessary to practice what Gurdjieff called "External Considering". (See: In Search of the Miraculous, or use the forum search for discussions of this.) This amounts to having a great knowledge of the self AND of human nature in general, and individuals in specific.

And finally, again, the RULES of engagement seem to mandate that truth tellers have SOME presence, that Truth be available for those who seek for it, otherwise, the 'invasion' can be deemed in violation of Cosmic Law and the consequences to 4D STS are unpleasant.

I hope I haven't bored anyone with this disquisition, but we really should be careful in our analyses.

Thank you Laura. I AM truly grateful to learn from you continuously. Daily now.

I will admit there must be resonance with dissonance and your point that somebody is telling the truth or parts of it is well received.

Its possible that Carlson is a good man and what he claims he actually is.

Looking forward to the release of these podcasts and continuing to learn from you and this amazing network of humans!

 

[SoFloJayC]

No one is "going to 4D STO" IMO.

4D and STO are two very different things.

Some might "go" to 4D, but the STO part is a long way off.

We are all, by definition of being 3D beings on planet earth, STS.

Unless you plan on becoming Buddah in the next few years, if you "go to 4D" you'll still be who you were the day before you "went".

Too many people think that "the wave" is going to "transform" them into some kind of enlightened being. There are no free lunches. Wherever you go, there you are.

Points well taken Joe. Hopefully everybody in this network and message thread will find out sooner rather than later.

 

[SoFloJayC]

Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, he's not wired that way. He's a sort of blue collar guy next door who can discern a lot of things by feel, but is not necessarily articulate. Most of the intellectuals who are articulate have either been bought off by the system, or had their egos so stroked by having certificates denoting their membership to some supposedly rarefied collegiate club that they follow the herd to maintain their prestige. There is also the prevalence of "potemkin intellectuals" who don't really have the IQ to fulfill that role, but are upwardly adjusted for ideological purposes and can put on a convincing imitation for short durations in controlled circumstances. The system coddles its intellectuals and pseudointellectuals because it requires a certain number of them to maintain its technocracy, while it sees most of the "worker bees" as dead weight that are either untrainable, or excess potential rabble rousers for its brave new world which must be depopulated. The result is that some of the people digging ditches on the side of the road are actually smarter than the college professors when defined in terms of being able to align with what is objectively true. This is the void that Rogan stepped into, and while his sense is very keen, he really doesn't have a lot of intellectual firepower to modulate it when it becomes misaligned.

As far as Tucker being a Mossad/CIA/intel asset, I can see that being technically true considering the circles he ran in being a top news anchor, both on the sides of his informants and the bosses he had to answer to. I don't think he consciously signed any deep state loyalty oaths, but agreed to play by certain rules of the game which surreptitiously brought him into the fold. He was also a product of that same collegiate club, although didn't get far enough into it for them to brainwash him completely. Thus, I think he left the reservation when the PTB were putting pressure on Fox to put pressure on him to shut up, and once they fired him whatever moral seed was within him erupted into full bloom. At that point he no longer had any reason to play the game, realized he didn't need them, and decided that if they were going to stoop so low as to try to destroy him with lies, he was justified in trying to destroy them with truth.

Hi Neil....this is a very well reasoned and articulate reply. I admit its totally possible. But I just don't sense it when I meditate on Tucker. I still see him as some sort of divide and conquer asset.

As I've learned here, we can't comprehend the intellectual rigor and higher density chess the 4DS2S agents have at their disposal when dealing with 3rd Density avatars.

Obviously I AM going against the opinions of many here, but its just an intuitive feel I have about Tucker.

I hope to be proven wrong.

 

[irjO]

Hi Neil....this is a very well reasoned and articulate reply. I admit its totally possible. But I just don't sense it when I meditate on Tucker. I still see him as some sort of divide and conquer asset.

Could be, could be that he really is an undercover agent or has an agenda, but does it matter? Well, by his actions so far, I would say no. Because even if he has any type of hidden agenda, what he has said so far in many aspects is truth. By his actions we will know, and so far his actions have been more to the positive side rather than negative, he raise a lot of valid questions that makes people think, critical thinking is becoming really rare nowadays and having someone in his position, making people to see different aspects and think more, it’s really valuable, we are at war for the truth, and the present reality of this planet is really bad and crucial, for that, any little help we can get it’s welcome.

Same for Alex Jones as Laura pointed out, there were many red flags in the past about him, and there still are some (his opinion on China for example) but if we put everything together and see the state of the world and how everything is going, we appreciate voices like him more than ever raising questions and making people to think more.

At the end of the day all this would never be a black and white scenario, there are always going to be gray areas. But the summary of the actions and words at the end it’s what matter.

Obviously I AM going against the opinions of many here, but its just an intuitive feel I have about Tucker.

That’s fine. I think one way or another some of us haven been in that position. To differ on one’s opinion doesn’t mean you are going against many of us. The important thing is the process of learning together, that’s why networking is reeeeally important, it’s the best calibration tool I think. One person would never be able to see the true reality of all, but a group of people who has the same aim and it’s the truth, it’s what can “save” one from our own egos, which can block one from really learn and protect us from negative forces of this reality in some capacity.

Now in my opinion, going back to the subject, I believe after hearing Carlson, whatever we can think about of him, he is getting more knowledgeable, because he likes to network and get data from different people (as he said), trustworthy or not those people can be, are making an effect on him. The Tucker C. we see today definitely is not the same one he was a couple of years ago, not just because he was in FOX (he always spoke his mind anyways) but because he knows way more now, and is starting to grasp the pick of the iceberg.

 

[Laura]

In many situations, as the Cs have pointed out, meditating is less helpful than networking. In meditation, as in using drugs to achieve insight, one can be easily 'taken over' and misled. Remember al-Arabi's list of effects:

1) When the inrush is greater than the strength of the soul, so it rules over the soul. Such a person has no ability to govern himself.
2) The inrush takes away the person’s rational faculties and nothing is left but animal faculties.
3) The inrush does not last, the state disappears, and the individual is able to return to his fellows with his reason intact. He governs his own affairs, and he understands and acts based on deliberation. Such is a messenger and the friends of God.

The extent to which we can be misled by our own 'insights' without the 'scale of the Law', i.e. networking, is actually frightening. That's the old 'my truth vs your truth' problem. How many have we seen who trusted their 'intuition' only to find out that it was a product of the 'reptilian brain' in more ways than one? You can't actually do that safely without having developed the 'eyes of the soul' (the process described by Mouravieff and discussed at various places here in detail) and that can take some time and a LOT of effort.

It's not called 'The Work' for no reason!

 

[truepositive]

Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, he's not wired that way.

Neil my friend, no one is wired to be an intellectual. We are all wired to be students of life, but most do not heed the call. Be your own authority, unless you honestly cannot.

 

[Joe]

Obviously I AM going against the opinions of many here, but its just an intuitive feel I have about Tucker.

One mental exercise you could try would be to think about everything of note that Carlson has said in recent years and highlight any lies or manipulations. Are there any? It not, then try to figure out how it would benefit the "bad guys" to have Carlson spread truth.

When we've thought about it, the only plausible reason we could come up with as to why someone would do that is to create a valid reputation as a truth teller in order to gain a loyal following, and then at some point in the future lead those people astray.

The problem there, however, is that you only uncover the deception when it drops, not before. For me, someone is a valid truth teller while they continue to tell the truth. If they shift into lies and manipulation at some point, I drop them. With that approach, there is no downside, as long as you don't become an acolyte to the point that your identification with the messenger means you can't see his lies. You appreciate and amplify the truth they are telling while they are telling it, and then expose them if/when they shift away from that.

So while Tucker is telling the truth, he's all good in my book. I'm not going to dismiss him now, while he's doing good work because I anticipate that at some point in the future he's gonna reveal that he's a agent of darkness and has been lying all along. The fact is, he's not lying right now, unless someone can provide some evidence to the contrary.

 

[Keyhole]

Hi Neil....this is a very well reasoned and articulate reply. I admit its totally possible. But I just don't sense it when I meditate on Tucker. I still see him as some sort of divide and conquer asset.

As I've learned here, we can't comprehend the intellectual rigor and higher density chess the 4DS2S agents have at their disposal when dealing with 3rd Density avatars.

Obviously I AM going against the opinions of many here, but its just an intuitive feel I have about Tucker.

I hope to be proven wrong.

One thing that has helped me over the years is to try my best to objectively assess the net effect of someone's work on the current state of humanity. Does it, as a whole, further the enslavement of people's mind & soul, but include a few sprinkles of truth? Or does it instead exert a overall net positive effect, despite not being 100% accurate?

One example that comes to mind is David Icke, who I was previously an avid follower of. For a long time after discovering Laura's work, I dismissed Icke as a "disinformation agent". Over the years, however, I have come to appreciate some nuance. First of all, there is a strong tendency within the "truth movement" to assign conscious intention, but the truth might be that many of the so-called "disinformation agents" are just fallible humans who are entirely unconscious of spreading false information, but who generally mean well and are doing their best to seek truth, though they simply don't have a worthwhile network to help tune their thinking. So they get lost in their own thinking somewhere along the way.

Despite the evident problems with Icke's interpretation of world events and the dynamics of 4DSTS, I have grown to become thankful for his influence, because it prepared me in many ways to be receptive to the C's material. I know for a fact that many people on this forum were also originally introduced to similar concepts through Icke's work, and through becoming inspired to seek more answers, eventually stumbled on Laura's material. He has become something like a "stepping stone" for so many people who want truth. It is correct to state that he gets a lot wrong. But I am convinced that his overall body of work exerts a net positive effect (or at least it did for me, and probably many others.)

I think the same can be said for Alex Jones. He doesn't have a solid network of people to help refine his ideas and stamp out his thinking errors, assumptions and false beliefs. Perhaps he has engaged in some intentional falsifications in the past. But I am honestly under the impression that the net effect of his work has also been positive. With the media attention he has had, Jones is essentially bridging the gap between "normies" and die-hard truth seekers, and opening so many people's eyes through the interviews he does on large channels.

Tucker continues to impress me. So for as long has he continues to speak truth, I will continue listening. It is always our job to parse the truth from the lies, no matter who is preaching it. And so far, Tucker is doing a great job. It he eventually performs a switcheroo, it will be quite clear to see for anyone who is genuinely paying attention.

 

[Chu]

Amazing quotes from Ibn al-Arabi, thank you! The part about preparedness reminded me of Gurdjieff's about Knowledge and Being which never gets old:

"There are," he said, "two lines along which man's development proceeds, the line of
knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line
of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of
knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of
the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must
come to a standstill.

"People understand what 'knowledge' means. And they understand the possibility of
different levels of knowledge. They understand that knowledge may be lesser or
greater, that is to say, of one quality or of another quality. But they do not understand
this in relation to 'being.' 'Being,' for them, means simply 'existence' to which is
opposed just 'non-existence.' They do not understand that being or existence may be of
very different levels and categories.

[...]

And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being.
Not only do they not understand this latter but they
definitely do not wish to understand it. And especially in Western culture it is
considered that a man may possess great knowledge, for example he may be an able
scientist, make discoveries, advance science, and at the same time he may be, and has
the right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain, naive, and absent
minded man. It seems to be considered here that a professor must always forget his
umbrella everywhere.

"And yet it is his being. And people think that his knowledge does not depend on
his being. People of Western culture put great value on the level of a man's knowledge
but they do not value the level of a man's being and are not ashamed of the low level
of their own being. They do not even understand what it means. And they do not
understand that a man's knowledge depends on the level of his being.

"If knowledge gets far ahead of being, it becomes theoretical and abstract and
inapplicable to life, or actually harmful, because instead of serving life and helping
people the better to struggle with the difficulties they meet, it begins to complicate
man's life, brings new difficulties into it, new troubles and calamities which were not
there before.

"The reason for this is that knowledge which is not in accordance with being cannot
be large enough for, or sufficiently suited to, man's real needs. It will always be a
knowledge of one thing together with ignorance of another thing; a knowledge of the
detail without a knowledge of the whole; a knowledge of the form without a
knowledge of the essence.

"Such preponderance of knowledge over being is observed in present-day culture.
The idea of the value and importance of the level of being is completely forgotten.
And it is forgotten that the level of knowledge is determined by the level of being.
Actually at a given level of being the possibilities of knowledge are limited and finite.
Within the limits of a given being the quality of knowledge cannot be changed, and
the accumulation of information of one and the same nature, within already
known limits, alone is possible. A change in the nature of knowledge is possible only
with a change in the nature of being.

"Taken in itself, a man's being has many different sides. The most characteristic
feature of a modem man is the absence of unity in him and, further, the absence in him
of even traces of those properties which he most likes to ascribe to himself, that is,
'lucid consciousness,' 'free will,' a 'permanent ego or I,' and the 'ability to do.' It may
surprise you if I say that the chief feature of a modem man's being which explains
everything else that is lacking in him is sleep.

"A modern man lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he dies. About sleep,
its significance and its role in life, we will speak later. But at present just think of one
thing, what knowledge can a sleeping man have? And if you think about it and at the
same time remember that sleep is the chief feature of our being, it will at once become
clear to you that if a man really wants knowledge, he must first of all think about how
to wake, that is, about how to change his being.
"Exteriorly man's being has many different sides: activity or passivity;
truthfulness or a tendency to lie; sincerity or insincerity; courage, cowardice; self
control, profligacy; irritability, egoism, readiness for self-sacrifice, pride, vanity,
conceit, industry, laziness, morality, depravity; all these and much more besides make
up the being of man.

"But all this is entirely mechanical in man. If he lies it means that he cannot help
lying. If he tells the truth it means that he cannot help telling the truth, and so it is
with everything. Everything happens, a man can do nothing either in himself or
outside himself.

"But of course there are limits and bounds. Generally speaking, the being of a
modem man is of very inferior quality. But it can be of such bad quality that no
change is possible. This must always be remembered. People whose being can still be
changed are very lucky. But there are people who are definitely diseased, broken
machines with whom nothing can be done. And such people are in the majority. If
you think of this you will understand why only few can receive real knowledge. Their
being prevents it.

"Generally speaking, the balance between knowledge and being is even more
important than a separate development of either one or the other. And a separate
development of knowledge or of being is not desirable in any way. Although it is
precisely this one-sided development that often seems particularly attractive to
people.

"If knowledge outweighs being a man knows but has no power to do. It is useless
knowledge. On the other hand if being outweighs knowledge a man has the power to
do, but does not know, that is, he can do something but does not know what to do.
The being he has acquired becomes aimless and efforts made to attain it prove to be
useless.

[...]

"In order to understand this and, in general, the nature of knowledge and the nature
of being, as well as their interrelation, it is necessary to understand the relation of
knowledge and being to 'understanding.'

"Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another thing.

"People often confuse these concepts and do not clearly grasp what is the difference
between them.

"Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased
by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of
knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And
knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to
be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does
not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows
simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the
growth of being.

"In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge.
They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they
accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how
to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.

"And yet a person accustomed to self-observation knows for certain that at different
periods of his life he has understood one and the same idea, one and the same thought,
in totally different ways. It often seems strange to him that he could have understood
so wrongly that which, in his opinion, he now understands rightly. And he realizes, at
the same time, that his knowledge has not changed, and that he knew as much about the given
subject before as he knows now. What, then, has changed? His being has changed.
And once being has changed understanding must change also.

When you first encounter the Cs and The Wave, it can be tempting to think in terms of what almost amounts to StarWars, or any sci-fi movie, with good guys and bad guys. But then, you realize how much more subtle these differences are in our reality. Most of all, you become more humble, because you understand that getting knowledge is only part of the equation, and we are all "STS". None of us is "immune" without a network and constant Work to clean our machine, our reading instrument, our thinking, our feelings, etc. So, best to observe (ourselves, others and the world), and network, network and network some more! Like Gurdjieff says above, real understanding is the result of knowledge and being. And that's a tall order! Just speaking from my experience, of course, but I imagine many people here can relate.

 

[Scottie]

The problem there, however, is that you only uncover the deception when it drops, not before. For me, someone is a valid truth teller while they continue to tell the truth. If they shift into lies and manipulation at some point, I drop them.

On top of that, the search for truth includes the possibility - even the high probability - that basic truths will change, even on a daily basis.

So, today Country X is doing good, while Country Y is evil. Tomorrow, that may change. In terms of people, someone may be doing good in the grander scheme of things today, even if they're a bit unstable/bonkers. Tomorrow, they fall off the cliff.

As for Tucker, he's quite a bozo when it comes to China, for example. China is doing what's good for China, which also happens to be bad for the USA. Well, can you blame them?! They're not overthrowing democratically elected governments or bombing like crazy in countries around the world. They're just striking deals, hoarding gold, and creating things like ships and rail lines and electronics at a dizzying pace. They're also making electric cars better and cheaper now at half the price, so what happens? Oh, electric cars aren't so good now. So let's tell everyone they DON'T want one, because we don't want China to dominate the market...

That said, Tucker also seems quite humble about his lack of knowledge about things in the past.

So, what comes next? Stay tuned!

 

[Aeneas]

Joe Rogan is a very deceptive con artist who without question is a 3rd Density Minion of the 4thDS2S Consortium.

This is *Fear Factor Joe* before he became *Joe Rogan MMA Bro*

Along with what others have said, I think we should not forget our own past and how we have changed. There is the potential at any stage to get a wake up call and start to see. 'Heroes' for a lack of a better word are not born, but come from where there was just a potential. The hero's journey involves going astray, getting mired in the 'mud', make mistakes and being tested. Through soul searching some pass some of the tests and start seeing clearer. That does not mean that they see everything nor does it mean that there aren't more tests and challenges ahead. So the hero is not static as if it is and endproduct. The STS forces are continually trying to get someone back in the fold and the more successful someone is on the path of truth, the more will the forces of darkness try to tempt them or to lead them astray. Such a hero is seen as a high value target as their potential conversion towards the lie would be a juicy meal. It would also serve as damage control as such a lighthouse in the service of truth has the potential to not only shine light into the darkness of lies but also the potential to ignite other dormant lighthouses.

So as Joe and others have said, then to support these people when they are speaking the truth but also to switch off when the promote lies. It is often not always so black and white but part of our immunity towards the fall of the mighty heroes, is to not treat them as infallible heroes in the first place, but simply as people who have come some way and who are currently are saying something truthful which is worth supporting.

 

[Ben]

I would go further and say that recently, and especially in this Joe Rogan interview, Tucker is speaking more freely and openly about things that are truthful than ever. He is also explaining why he is motivated to do that, with completely non-materialist interpretations of everyday concepts. Most of all he understands the implications of realising the terror of the situation, he might not know exactly what to do about it but he gets that there IS a battle. That's a hugely important thing to have reaching so many people. He has become more likeable and seemingly genuine than ever in a relatively short time. Like others, when I have thoughts like this I question them and whether I am missing something or reading someone incorrectly. I remain open to that possibility, if it happens I will readjust (and not rely on myself alone to make that assessment). So there is very little risk in saying that right now Tucker is doing great work, and I want to be as generous to him as I feel he is being with his audience.

He's not perfect but he might be the best in such a position at this time.

 

[Ryan]

I was very impressed by Tucker in this interview with Rogan. He's clearly grasped the key point with regard to the many issues discussed: that Good and Evil have an intrinsic relationship to Truth and Lies. And he's applying this knowledge, while remaining open to the idea that he might not always be correct in his interpretations of any specific situation or topic. His mixture of eloquence and humility will hopefully inspire many others.

Although it did look that Rogan got a bit defensive on the subject of aliens, he seemed to warm to Tucker's point of view as the conversation went on and Tucker was willing to explain some of the problematic assumptions Rogan had: the materialistic view of evolution, uniformitarian view of human progress, inevitable omnipotence of AI, benevolence/indifference of aliens etc. The clear rapport they had on the subject of free speech was good to see, as well.

It's interesting how previously 'fringe' topics seem to be making it into more mainstream discourse now; 'alt-media' commentators are picking up on just how bad and absurd the situation in the west is getting, and aren't wasting their time with minor controversies, but instead getting straight into bigger issues. Perhaps this is why the PTB currently seem extremely concerned about censorship: they've made life so miserable for people that the remaining 'bread and circuses' are losing their appeal to reality, at least among the growing skeptical portion of the population.

I learned a few things about Alex Jones in this interview as well. I didn't realise he had actually predicted 9/11. If he's much closer to the mark than most people give him credit for, that could explain why there was such an all-out effort to destroy him. Hopefully he can continue making waves.

The problem there, however, is that you only uncover the deception when it drops, not before. For me, someone is a valid truth teller while they continue to tell the truth. If they shift into lies and manipulation at some point, I drop them.

This is how I've been looking at it lately as well. For all that it's good to see people like Tucker, Rogan, Jones etc attracting large audiences, the responsibility for our beliefs and worldview rests ultimately on us, so it's crucial to maintain vigilance, continue to refine our discernment and grow our knowledge and NETWORK so that we have a chance to escape the many ideological traps that are out there. As the C's once said:

A: [..] You must never forget that this is a real war at the deepest levels, a war for souls and the future. All of you here are crucial to the successful outcome. All sorts of ploys will be utilized to destroy your unity. This was begun at your births and includes early childhood torture at the hands of those most susceptible to control in your lives. This was intended to make dysfunctional traits that would interfere with the successful completion of your respective missions. It is a great challenge. But you knew it beforehand and were strengthened for the task.