Tucker Carlson on UFOs

 

The Deep State Took Out Nixon?

 

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1781736785757806911

A White Pill

 

What We Look Like from Abroad

 

And a lot of Americans watch Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson Speaks to Canada

 

Posted Here as a Public Service

 

It is important to ensure that this gets more views than Fox News. 

Tucker is also fun to listen to.

Canadian Soft Power

 

Here is one more indication of how Justin Trudeau has destroyed Canadaès international reputation.

On Taking Tucker Carlson off the Air

 

In the current reaction among Democrats to the release of the Twitter files, and to Tucker Carlson’s airing of the January 6 videos, we are seeing the phenomenon sometimes called “narcissistic rage”; and perhaps gaining insight into why it occurs.

It happens when a liar is caught straight out in a lie; if the liar is a narcissist. What is he or she going to do? Not admit the lie; that is obviously too much to expect. Instead they will start shouting and making demands. They will project their own crime onto whoever threatens truth; they may even become apparently delusional, insisting that the evidence of our own eyes is a lie. “Gaslighting.”

Consider the recent speech of Chuck Schumer demanding that Tucker Carlson be taken off the air.

This sort of attempted bullying is not a sign of strength, but of weakness. The narcissist is fragile. He or she cannot bend or admit wrongdoing without breaking. 

What we call “narcissism” is more properly someone committed long term to vice; someone who has sold their soul to the Devil. If they then admit a lie, that reality is a thing, that there is an objective morality, they lose, in their own mind, everything. That is why the transgenders insist that, if you do not refer to them by their preferred pronouns, you are “denying they exist.”

Rather than admit the lie, they will resort to the most vicious language, and even to violence. 

We have seen this of late in Justin Trudeau.

Take heart; it is a sign that the beast is in its death throes.

The Grandfather of All Conspiracy Theories

 

In recent years, we have been learning that one “conspiracy theory” after another is actually true. Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophilia ring. Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide. The Russia hoax. The vaccines and the lockdowns. The excess deaths. UFOs turn out to be legit. The FBI was manipulating and shadowbanning on Twitter. 

“Conspiracy theory” became a pejorative in the wake of Oliver Stone’s implausible film on the JFK assassination. Whether it was intended to cast derision on the concept of conspiracies, it had that effect. For the term as common parlance dates back to theories on that assassination.

Now that we learn conspiracies are genuinely possible and apparently common in government, have we been wrongly dismissing the big one?

Was the Kennedy assassination actually the moment the CIA and the Deep State seized control of the US government? Was it a secret coup?

Scott Adams has argued for years that any country with a large spy agency can, will and must be taken over by that agency eventually. There is every incentive, and nothing to prevent it. These spies have a license to do whatever they want, essentially unlimited government funding, a license to keep it all secret, a license to kill. Are they going to sit idle and not make use of this power? Are they going to use it only on external enemies? 

Russia has been visibly owned by the KGB since at least Yuri Andropov. Britain has been run by MI5 for generations; the British don’t particularly care, because they are used to deference and historically trust their ruling class. But America has always had these quaint delusions about democracy and the popular will. 

Those of us who remember the Kennedy assassination remember it as a generational trauma, the end of our innocence. Nothing has ever felt right since. 

Perhaps our instincts were right.

Perhaps now it will all come out. 

Perhaps that might start to make it right.

"I now feel that most of my adult life, what I have thought was real, has been erased."--Roger Simon

Tucker Carlson Gets It

 

Eerily germane to my most recent post.

Tucker Carlson the Witch

Tucker Carlson

Fox host Tucker Carlson is under attack for comments he made on the “Bubba the Love Sponge” radio show some years ago. Advertisers are reportedly pulling out, despite his show’s high ratings.

I’ve spoken about this sort of thing before, with reference to the (Virginia governor Ralph) Northam yearbook controversy. Such witch hunts must stop. Doesn’t anyone see that this is McCarthyism? Worse, in fact, than McCarthyism was. We used to all agree that this was wrong.

Whether or not what Carlson said was somehow erroneous, or upset somebody, he has the right to say it. Not that his comments were themselves egregious, but that does not matter. And in this case it was not even anything said on his show. To try to hound him off the air because of it, therefore, is extreme sharkvaulting blacklisting. Logically, the intent is to prevent him from ever again practicing his profession, anywhere, from making a living--because you disagree with something he said. This is not honourable or decent behavior now any more than it would have been in Hollywood in the 1950s. But it is beyond anything seen in Hollywood in the 1950s. 

Although literally about the Salem witch hunts, Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" was also a thinly-veiled criticism of McCarthyism,

Whatever he said is properly irrelevant, unless it involved slander or calls for violence. But the accusations against him are ludicrously trivial in comparison to any McCarthy or the House Committee on Un-American Activities ever levelled. The charge in those days was belonging to or supporting a political organization, the Communist Party, that sought in principle the violent overthrow of the US government; at a time when Communism was a clear and present geopolitical danger. All Carlson is accused of is opinions that are unfashionable in some circles, although demonstrably acceptable in others--as witness the gratifying ratings enjoyed by Mr. Love Sponge.

If the harpies and inquisitors keep getting away with this, nobody is safe. What is permissible to say in these same witchfinder circles changes so quickly and unpredictably year to year and even month by month that anyone could be professionally destroyed at any time for something they said several years ago. Who could have predicted just a few years ago, for example, that it would soon become a “hate crime” to oppose gay marriage? Yet people have lost their jobs over that one. 

Senator Joseph McCarthy

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. It is also essential for a democracy to function; because it is essential to make it possible to discuss the issues. Which is precisely what Carlson was doing, and precisely what the blacklist bullies seek to prevent. It must never matter what Carlson said, or whether either you or I agree with it. It should not matter even had he said it on his own show yesterday. If you don’t want to hear it, you don’t watch.

But the attack on Carlson does matter, and must concern us all. Our basic freedoms are under assault, as is the very fabric of our society.

Some will insist this is not a free speech issue, because government is not involved. That is so in terms of the US Constitution. But in terms of the Lockean theory on which it is founded, the very purpose of having a government is to protect our rights and freedoms from each other. Granted that here it is not government that is infringing on freedom of speech, but a mostly faceless mob. Government exists to protect us from such things, just as, and for the same reason, we expect it to protect us from lynch mobs. 

Families and friends of victims of the 1950s Hollywood blacklist protesting.

The puzzle is how to do this here. Sponsors have their own freedom of speech, and therefore a perfect right not to sponsor some program with which they disagree. Consumers have the perfect right not to buy a product, and so to boycott. Networks have the right to cancel a program if it is no longer profitable. And on the whole, government in a democracy is not a reliable protection against mob rule; essentially, the same mob elects them. Relying on government to help here may be asking the fox to mind the henhouse.

Voluntary action may do the trick: organize to boycott in turn any business that pulls their ads. Make a point of buying from those who do not. 

Matthew Hopkins, intrepid witchfinder general; the Media Matters of his day.

Sadly, in the meantime, however, even if this works, a good many lives may be destroyed.

Another possibility, it seems to me, would be a law making it illegal to advocate either “deplatforming,” discrimination in employment, or boycotting on grounds of speech, given that the speech itself is legal. Unfortunately, this too would be an infringement on freedom of speech; but one that can perhaps be justified by genuine public need. In the words of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this restriction, like those against slander or fraud, could be “demonstrably justified.”

Aliens!

Some years ago, Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defense Minister and perennial leadership contender, made a bit of a splash by declaring UFOs to be real, and claiming an international coverup. I took little notice; sounded like a guy used to being in the public eye trying to attract attention one last time. In fact, Hellyer has always been like that.

A friend turned out to be a UFO buff. Again, I took little notice. He spoke of multiverses. My problem with that was Occam’s razor: it is the worst possible violation of Occam’s razor. It is much simpler to assume the existence of a spirit world.

Now Tucker Carlson on Fox News has apparently been won over to the idea that UFOs are real.

They might be. Certainly there are UFOs in the literal sense: unidentified flying objects. The only question is, what are they? Are they alien visitors?

I am skeptical for several reasons. First, the vast distances of space. The nearest planet with possible life, let alone intelligent life, let alone intelligent life with such advanced technology, has to be light-years away. I am under the impression that the laws of physics prohibit travel at faster than the speed of light. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps our present physics is wrong. But if not, that means it would have to take anyone years to get here. More likely hundred or thousands of years.

The obvious next question is, why would it be worth their while? What could be here for them that they could not get at home, and needed so badly?

I could see visiting out of curiosity, to have a look around. Fine; but then they surely would send robot craft, not come themselves. There would be no need for that, and it would be a big sacrifice. So perhaps that is what we are seeing.

I am also more skeptical than most about the inevitability of an intelligent life form developing such advanced technology. The fundamental belief that the physical world is real, and so worth paying much attention to, is rare among human cultures. It is pretty much a Judeo-Christian thing. You need that before you get very interested in physical technology. It seems to me that a non-human civilization could be highly intelligent, and last for many centuries, but concentrate more on issues of spiritual and emotional, not physical, well-being. And then, if they decide to concentrate on physical, I can see them focusing on things like eliminating disease and poverty rather than exploring space. The number of even highly intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations, if any exist, who would think it worthwhile to have a space program might be quite small.

If what we are seeing is robot visitors coming to look and study, it is not really an alarming or earth-threatening event. It is not as if, as Tucker Carlson or Paul Hellyer suggest, we need to develop some plan for defense against alien attack. The logic still holds that there is very unlikely to be anything here worth their while to come and get. If there were, somebody somewhere would have probably come and gotten it centuries ago, when we could only defend with longbows or assegais and were easy pickings.

Might it be possible for someone to invent a device like the old transporter in Star Trek, that immediately beams something to any distant place, by dissolving and re-forming them at a molecular level? There are a few problems with that concept. In Star Trek, the thing or person always dissolves at the point of departure, as it or he reforms at the destination. But that would obviously not be necessary: one could just as well create an exact duplicate while leaving the original intact.

Now we have a problem, if we are transporting sentient beings. Where would the consciousness reside, in the original or in the duplicate?

I think it has to be in the original. There is logically nothing in the act of recreation at the molecular level that would unplug the consciousness connection from one body, and insert in in the other. And if in the original when there are two, then also in the original if there is one. The consciousness would not be transferred. If conscious, the transported body would be a new and separate person. Meaning that any such transportation would mean death for the subject, subjectively speaking. Kind of unattractive.

Those who are religious have a possible alternative explanation: these lights in the sky are angels, or demons, or sprites. Yes, they are visible to the eye and to radar; but according to our ancient sources, angels and demons can be too, if they choose to be. And these craft do, after all, violate the known laws of physics. That might after all suggest something.