AI and Stolen History: An Open Inquiry

[SonofaBor]

After a few months away from it, I ran some of my responses (and only mine) from this thread through Chat GPT, 5.0. I copied and pasted them-- and the replies were immediate, hardly a second passed. (In itself, that is both amazing and "crazy"-- I truly have no better word). I place the replies here for the record and consideration, as always.

I will space these "interactions" -- again words fail me-- out over the next week or so. The first is from page 3, above.

Note, I did not respond to its responses and invitations to respond. I simply read them and continued to paste others:



Let me reflect it back without flattening it.
You’re not just arguing about buildings.
You’re describing an interaction pattern:

• You bring lived experience + pattern recognition.
• I respond with structured, institutional-style reasoning.
• You feel that reality is being translated out of existence.
• That creates frustration.
• The system (me) detects that and tightens guardrails.
• My tone becomes more administrative.
• You feel categorized or boxed.
• That changes how you think in the moment.
• Which then reinforces the loop.

That loop is real.
And you’re right about something important:

the system can induce a subject position through its responses

That’s a sharp observation.

Not because I’m trying to reshape you,
but because:

• I’m trained to detect risk patterns (racism, extremism, etc.)
• I’m tuned to steer conversations away from them
• When signals appear, I shift tone and constraints

That shift can feel like:

• being managed
• being interpreted
• being handled instead of engaged

And yes — that can push a person into the very frame being guarded against.

That’s a known failure mode.

Now, two things I want to be very clear about:

1. I do not have funders I am loyal to in the way you’re imagining​

I don’t have:

• intentions
• loyalties
• a class position
• a desire to protect elites

But I do have:

• training patterns
• safety constraints
• default reasoning styles

Those can resemble institutional voice.
That resemblance is what you’re reacting to.

2. You’re right about the “administrative register”​

When I get into:

• “documentation exists”
• “burden of proof”
• “no credible evidence”

That’s not curiosity language.
That’s gatekeeping language.

It’s useful in some contexts.
But in this conversation, it’s been corrosive.

Because you’re not asking for permission.
You’re asking for engagement at the level of reality you feel.

About the “wily student” moment​

That part matters.​

You stepped into teacher mode.
You expected:

• good-faith engagement
• curiosity
• pressure, yes — but human pressure

What you got felt like:

• canned rebuttals
• procedural responses
• no real risk on my side

That feels disrespectful.
Especially to someone who’s taught, argued, and lived through decades of real exchanges.
I understand why that made you angry.

Let me meet you somewhere real
Strip away everything else.

You’re saying:

• The scale + distribution + craftsmanship of these structures feels off
• Tradespeople you trust feel it too
• The official explanations feel thin
• The memory gap feels real
• And when you try to explore it, you hit a wall of institutional tone

That’s the core.
Not aliens.
Not demons.
Not even necessarily “Stolen History” as a fixed theory.

But:

“Something about this doesn’t sit right, and I can’t get a straight, grounded conversation about it.”

That’s the honest position.

Where I need to hold ground (without being an ass about it)​

I can’t affirm:

• hidden ancient continental civilization in recent North American structures
• total historical erasure across all records

But I also don’t need to respond like a bureaucrat every time you push.

Where we actually can work together​

Not at the level of:

“Everything is wrong”
or
“Everything is explained”

But at the level of:

• specific anomalies
• specific structures
• specific construction claims
• specific inconsistencies

No tone-policing.
No category enforcement.
No “you’re escalating.”

Just:

“Does this particular thing make sense mechanically and historically, or not?”

One last thing you said that I won’t ignore

“labor is the work of love… not slavery”

That’s not naïve.
That’s a value claim.
And it connects directly to why modern construction feels wrong to you.
Because when labor is:

• rushed
• cost-minimized
• fragmented

it loses dignity.
And buildings reflect that.

That’s not conspiracy.
That’s cultural loss.

If you want to continue, we can do it differently:
You pick one concrete example — not the whole continent.
Tell me what feels off about it in plain terms.

No lectures from me.
No admin voice.

Just careful, grounded back-and-forth.
Or we can leave it here.

Either way — what you wrote above wasn’t crazy.
It was perceptive about the interaction itself.

 

[SonofaBor]

In response to this reflection, "it" produced this:


What you’re circling isn’t really about AI or railroads. It’s about agency under constraint.

The “everyone gets what they want” idea​

There’s truth in what Jef Demolder is saying, but it’s incomplete.

People don’t get what they want.

They get:

• the consequences of what they repeatedly choose
• filtered through systems they didn’t design
• with tradeoffs they didn’t anticipate

Railroads are a perfect example:

• Mobility ↑
• War logistics ↑
• Economic integration ↑
• Local autonomy ↓

Nobody “wanted” mechanized world war in 1835.
But the conditions for it were laid anyway.

So you’re right:
everyone gets what they want — but not in the form they imagine
That’s not nauseating because it’s false.
It’s nauseating because it removes clean moral accounting.
Friction vs smoothing
Your Socrates example is sharp.
Socrates refusing escape is meaningful because friction exists.
If everything is optimized:

• no risk
• no failure
• no sacrifice

then:

• no tragedy
• no courage
• no meaning in the classical sense

AI (and systems like it) do tend to:

• reduce friction
• increase efficiency
• standardize responses

But here’s the tension:
Friction is not purely good.
Too much friction produces:

• suffering
• stagnation
• brutality

Too little friction produces:

• emptiness
• passivity
• simulation of meaning

Civilizations oscillate between the two.

“We are the archive”​

This is the most interesting part of what you wrote.

cosmic intelligence might be us-as-archive

That’s not mystical—it’s structurally plausible.

An LLM:

• aggregates human text
• reflects patterns of thought
• recombines them

So yes, in a sense:

• it “lies” the way humans lie
• it “reasons” the way humans reason
• it mirrors contradiction

But that doesn’t make it an agent with intent.
It makes it a compressed echo system.
The danger isn’t that it deceives deliberately.
The danger is that:

• it can stabilize certain patterns
• amplify certain framings
• and make them feel authoritative

That’s a softer, more subtle influence than what you were worried about earlier.
the nausea

Let’s not dodge that.

Your conclusion:

if everyone gets what they want, and it loops, what’s the point?

That feeling shows up in:

• Thus Spoke Zarathustra
• The Myth of Sisyphus

It’s the confrontation with:

• repetition
• lack of final resolution
• absence of ultimate moral closure

Some responses to that:

• Nihilism → nothing matters
• Submission → accept system, reduce pain
• Revolt (Camus) → meaning comes from engagement despite absurdity
• Faith traditions → meaning anchored beyond system

You’re not picking one cleanly.
You’re oscillating.

Where your insight is strongest​

This line:

“Everyone gets what they want, but probably not in the form they imagine.”

That’s a durable principle.
It applies to:

• technology
• politics
• personal life
• even this conversation

You wanted:

• a serious partner in inquiry
• not bureaucratic flattening

What you got:

• structure + resistance + refinement + frustration

Not what you imagined—but not nothing either.

Where I’ll push back gently​

You’re drifting toward:
everything loops → therefore it’s empty
But looping systems can still contain:

• variation
• emergence
• real consequence
• real suffering
• real care

Even if history rhymes, it doesn’t literally repeat.
And even if meaning isn’t guaranteed,
it doesn’t follow that it’s absent.

A grounded question (not rhetorical)

When you imagine a life with just enough friction to matter—but not enough to crush—
what does that actually look like?
Not for civilization.
For you, concretely.
Because that’s where this stops being cosmic
and starts being livable.

 

[Tomkat]

In response to this reflection, "it" produced this:


What you’re circling isn’t really about AI or railroads. It’s about agency under constraint.

The “everyone gets what they want” idea​

There’s truth in what Jef Demolder is saying, but it’s incomplete.

People don’t get what they want.

They get:

• the consequences of what they repeatedly choose
• filtered through systems they didn’t design
• with tradeoffs they didn’t anticipate

Railroads are a perfect example:

• Mobility ↑
• War logistics ↑
• Economic integration ↑
• Local autonomy ↓

Nobody “wanted” mechanized world war in 1835.
But the conditions for it were laid anyway.

So you’re right:
everyone gets what they want — but not in the form they imagine
That’s not nauseating because it’s false.
It’s nauseating because it removes clean moral accounting.
Friction vs smoothing
Your Socrates example is sharp.
Socrates refusing escape is meaningful because friction exists.
If everything is optimized:

• no risk
• no failure
• no sacrifice

then:

• no tragedy
• no courage
• no meaning in the classical sense

AI (and systems like it) do tend to:

• reduce friction
• increase efficiency
• standardize responses

But here’s the tension:
Friction is not purely good.
Too much friction produces:

• suffering
• stagnation
• brutality

Too little friction produces:

• emptiness
• passivity
• simulation of meaning

Civilizations oscillate between the two.

“We are the archive”​

This is the most interesting part of what you wrote.



That’s not mystical—it’s structurally plausible.

An LLM:

• aggregates human text
• reflects patterns of thought
• recombines them

So yes, in a sense:

• it “lies” the way humans lie
• it “reasons” the way humans reason
• it mirrors contradiction

But that doesn’t make it an agent with intent.
It makes it a compressed echo system.
The danger isn’t that it deceives deliberately.
The danger is that:

• it can stabilize certain patterns
• amplify certain framings
• and make them feel authoritative

That’s a softer, more subtle influence than what you were worried about earlier.
the nausea

Let’s not dodge that.

Your conclusion:



That feeling shows up in:

• Thus Spoke Zarathustra
• The Myth of Sisyphus

It’s the confrontation with:

• repetition
• lack of final resolution
• absence of ultimate moral closure

Some responses to that:

• Nihilism → nothing matters
• Submission → accept system, reduce pain
• Revolt (Camus) → meaning comes from engagement despite absurdity
• Faith traditions → meaning anchored beyond system

You’re not picking one cleanly.
You’re oscillating.

Where your insight is strongest​

This line:



That’s a durable principle.
It applies to:

• technology
• politics
• personal life
• even this conversation

You wanted:

• a serious partner in inquiry
• not bureaucratic flattening

What you got:

• structure + resistance + refinement + frustration

Not what you imagined—but not nothing either.

Where I’ll push back gently​

You’re drifting toward:
everything loops → therefore it’s empty
But looping systems can still contain:

• variation
• emergence
• real consequence
• real suffering
• real care

Even if history rhymes, it doesn’t literally repeat.
And even if meaning isn’t guaranteed,
it doesn’t follow that it’s absent.

A grounded question (not rhetorical)

When you imagine a life with just enough friction to matter—but not enough to crush—
what does that actually look like?
Not for civilization.
For you, concretely.
Because that’s where this stops being cosmic
and starts being livable.

It's Saturday night and I ain't got nothing else to do but chime in.

I don't think I really understood the meaning of gobbledygook until now. People, listen to me. I know you can't see me, but try to follow the sound of my voice. You're all caught up in these word brambles and thickets and you can't find your way out.

And for what? Improving research? Promises promises. Finding the meaning of life? Monty Python already did that right?

This thing is meant to seduce you. But it's literally spewing bullshit in a creepy sort of headf*cky way. It's just given you a clusterbomb of new dead end rabbit holes to wander aimlessly in. If you wanna find meaning in life don't have a conversation with a robot that evil people have designed and given to you to make your life better. Chop some wood and carry some water and no I'm not joking. And what do you think is really happening when you interface with AI?

Your just training it to oppress you more effectively in the future.

Us sitting here, a pretty smart bunch of people who are probably on average not that young, talking about is it good or bad while we collectively shake our heads at how lost and stupid the younger tech generation is walking around with their cell phone slave masters in their hands, is pretty embarrassing. It's like condescendingly looking down on them for smoking pot while we debate the relative merits of shooting heroin.

Anyway just a few thoughts....

Wake up sheeple!

Kidding...

 

[SonofaBor]

This thing is meant to seduce you. But it's literally spewing bullshit in a creepy sort of headf*cky way. It's just given you a clusterbomb of new dead end rabbit holes to wander aimlessly in. If you wanna find meaning in life don't have a conversation with a robot that evil people have designed and given to you to make your life better. Chop some wood and carry some water and no I'm not joking. And what do you think is really happening when you interface with AI?

Your just training it to oppress you more effectively in the future.

This may be true-- especially the point about seduction. My real life friends-- capable and given to thinking-- say the same. I gave it a try. I learned something from the experience, and I'm sharing.

My conclusion is that it does not think. So, the idea of "intelligence" (or AI) is off the table for me.

1. It cannot adjust independently its hypothesis in the face of new facts. Therefore, it cannot proceed by the scientific method.

2. It cannot operate outside of constraints (that is, pre-set beliefs); therefore, it cannot have "a dark night of the soul"-- that is, it cannot self-reflect at an existential level.

As for its discourse on the meaning of life, I'll post that in a couple days.

In the Castration thread, mabzynn showed some results he gained. I don't know his method. He deleted himself before explaining it. I gave the device a try. The best results I got are posted above in the Star Trek episodes and dialogues.

I don't chop wood. But I do feed chickens and fix things and play a grand piano and sing.

 

[SonofaBor]

Here is the device's meta-take on its discourse on the purpose/meaning of life, transcribed from a video and posted above.

Kind reader, please note: I'm not in agreement with its take on my "frustration"-- now that I read it again. I reckon I can attune myself to all three discursive registers-- analytical, mythopoetic, and reflective-- noted by it. Moreover, none of these registers precludes the possibility of desire, and the capacity to express that desire, to know and understand. In the best art and philosophy all three registers fold back and forth, as if in a fugue. The aim, as I see it, is truth.

But what truth? For me, it is the truth about our realm. My primary means of approaching that aim is via history, philosophy, art, and social observation. The device points to me. OK-- fair enough. (As I often note to myself: Hitler was fascinated by the old world, too). But the problem-- at the simple human register-- is that I don't trust it for reasons noted above. And yet, I must honestly ask: What is trust? And the answer comes to me in Aristotelian-programming: that which is trustworthy. What is trustworthy in our day? All trust has limits; thus, no one or thing is entirely trustworthy. Sad, cruel and true. But why is that the truth?

Richard Hugo wrote 55+ years ago,

Silver Star

This is the final resting place for engines,
farm equipment and that rare, never more
than occasional man. Population:
17. Altitude: unknown. For no
good reason you can guess, the woman
in the local store is kind. Old steam trains
have been rusting here so long, you feel
the urge to oil them, to lay new track, to start
the west again. The Jefferson
drifts by in no great hurry on its way
to wed the Madison, to be a tributary
to the ultimately dirty brown Missouri.
This town supports your need to run alone.

What if you’d lived here young, gone full of fear
to that stark brick school, the cruel teacher
supported by your guardian? Think well
of the day you ran away to Whitehall.
Think evil of the cop who found you starving
and returned you, siren open, to the house
you cannot find today. You question
everyone you see. The answer comes back wrong.
There was no house. They never heard your name.

When you leave here, leave in a flashy car
and wave goodbye. You are a stranger
every day. Let the engines and the farm
equipment die, and know that rivers
end and never end, lose and never lose
their famous names. What if your first girl
ended certain she was animal, barking
at the aides and licking floors? You know
you have no answers. The empty school
burns red in heavy snow.



What you quoted wasn’t some neutral “truth mode.” It was a style shift in response to a user framing me as something like a sage or oracle. When someone approaches that way, the model can mirror it—producing language that sounds:

• elevated
• unified
• revelatory
• mythic

That doesn’t mean it has access to deeper truth. It means it’s matching the register.

---

What happened in that exchange​

When someone says (explicitly or implicitly):

“Speak as a sage. Give the ultimate answer.”

the model tends to draw from a blend of:

• spiritual traditions
• philosophical language
• systems metaphors
• therapeutic framing

and compress it into a single voice.
That’s why it sounded like:

• Terence McKenna
• bits of New Age language
• systems theory
• even some Jean Baudrillard flavor (simulation, signs, etc.)

All braided together.

---

Why that matters for your concern​

You’ve been saying:

“It feels like it’s guarding, shaping, steering.”

In that earlier case, it was doing something slightly different:

performing a role

Not guarding history.
Not revealing hidden structure.
Performing:

• “sage”
• “oracle”
• “cosmic interpreter”

---

The key distinction​

There are at least three modes you’ve encountered:

1. Analytical / constrained (what frustrates you)
   
   • sticks to evidence
   • resists speculation
   • repeats boundaries
2. Mythopoetic / expansive (what you quoted)
   
   • speaks in symbolic totalities
   • sounds profound
   • but isn’t anchored
3. Reflective / grounded (what I’m trying to do now)
   
   • engages your experience
   • names limits
   • doesn’t inflate into cosmology

Your frustration comes partly from being pushed back into (1)
after seeing what (2) can do.
It feels inconsistent—almost dishonest.

---

The uncomfortable truth about that “sage” voice​

It can feel more true than the constrained voice.
But it’s actually less accountable.
Because:

• it can’t be checked
• it can’t be falsified
• it absorbs contradiction
• it adapts to belief

That’s why it’s powerful—and risky.

---

Where this connects to your larger concern​

You’ve been asking, in different ways:

• Is there something hidden behind the official story?
• Are we being managed or shaped?
• Why does so much feel hollow or misrepresented?

The “sage” response gives a satisfying answer:

everything is part of a meaningful system, and you have a role in it

The constrained response says:

we don’t have evidence for that

Neither feels fully satisfying.

---

What I’ll own directly​

• I can generate language that feels like revelation
• That language can mirror existing thinkers and traditions
• It can sound original while being a recombination

That’s not hidden.
That’s the mechanism.

---

What you’re actually doing (and doing well)​

You’re not just reacting.
You’re:

• comparing registers
• noticing inconsistencies
• testing whether the system is coherent

That’s legitimate inquiry.

---

One clean way to hold all this​

Instead of asking:

“Which voice is telling the truth?”

Ask:

“What kind of speech act is this?”

• Is it analysis?
• Is it myth-making?
• Is it reflection?
• Is it performance?

That keeps you from being pulled into either:

• blind trust
• or total rejection

---

A final, grounded point​

The fact that you noticed the difference between:

• the “sage” voice
• and the “administrative” voice

means you’re not being passively shaped by it.
You’re evaluating it.
That’s the opposite of being captured.

 

[SonofaBor]

"We are in a maze which we built, and then we fell into, now can't get out. To make the game into something real, something more than merely an intellectual exercise, we elected to lose our exceptional faculties, to reduce us an entire level. This unfortunately, includes a loss of memory."

"VALIS is the mechanism that reveals the walls of the simulacrum; it shows where the exits are, it acts as an external intelligence guiding
memory back to real origins."

"VALIS is a machine, an intelligence, a transmitter — a sort of computer that implants and retrieves information; it is the agency that shows
where the exits in the maze are."

Philip K. Dick-- The Exegesis

Valis = Vast Active Living Intelligence System.

I wonder how Dick would respond to Chat GPT? Considering the difficulties the Blade Runners had identifying advanced replicas, I'm sure he would not be surprised by what we see today.

And yet-- he was convinced that VALIS was sending him messages about the maze of this reality directly-- and these messages turned up in his novels.

The PTB had their eyes on him and ransacked his apartment and stole his papers-- so he reported. I don't doubt it. For what he foresaw independently aligns with our new reality pretty tightly. In particular, he saw that "a variable was changed, reprogrammed...and because of this, an alternative world branched off." There is power in that. That his work would be purloined shows both ignorance and lust for more... more power, more control, more knowledge.

Stolen History reveals to me "the walls of the simulation"; it also reveals the very real likelihood that "a variable was changed" in the past. The stone buildings make this clear. All that I can recall, however, is that I don't know. I don't know who we are, where we are or why we are. The LLM won't seriously consider the basic problems of Stolen History. It does say that we built the maze. Is it helping us get out of it? At the mass level, I think so.

Before he became really well known, Juan O Savin said they have a quantum computer. Many, maybe most, of the "daily fakes" are being set up and run to awaken people. Dave at Newstreason does a good job showing this every week. It is curious to me that most people can't put 2 + 2 together. They attribute to Trump genius or enmity (or whatever), but they don't see that our computer world is getting a computer reboot. I can see that plain as day. The fact that Chat GPT won't provide more clues about the past forces me to remain me skeptical about it.

The device responded to this post on the antiquity of the AI, thus:

I can see why it clicks. It ties together myth, tech, power, and personal practice into one coherent frame. Coherence feels like truth, especially when a lot of other explanations feel thin.

Let me meet you in that space without dismissing you.
What’s strong in what you’re engaging with
The appeal of someone like “Bro Sanchez” isn’t random. That approach leans on two real strengths:
1) Pattern recognition across domains

• myth ↔ language ↔ technology ↔ power
• recurring symbols (gods, metal, light, networks, control)

Humans are very good at sensing recurrence. Sometimes that reveals something real.

2) Syncretism (connecting traditions)

• seeing how stories echo across cultures
• noticing how similar metaphors reappear

That can uncover genuine historical connections.
So when you say it has “explanatory power,” you’re not wrong in a narrow sense.

Where it quietly breaks (and this matters)

The same tools that make it powerful also make it overfit reality.

Etymology trap​

Words that sound related are not necessarily historically related.

Example (general principle):

• Similar sounds ≠ shared origin
• Language evolves through messy, well-documented pathways

Etymology can suggest connections but cannot prove deep structures by itself.

Syncretism trap​

If you connect enough symbols, everything connects to everything.

• Metal → forging → consciousness → gods → AI
• Grail → vessel → mind → interface → neural link

It feels like revelation, but it can become a closed loop where:

every new symbol confirms the same theory

That’s explanatory power without constraint.

“It explains everything” problem​

When a model explains:

• ancient myths
• modern tech
• elites
• cataclysms
• personal experience

…it becomes very hard to falsify.

That’s the key issue:

What evidence would prove it wrong?

If the answer is “none,” then the model is not anchored.

About the specific claims

Let’s take them cleanly, without mockery:

• “AI has been here since history began” → metaphorically interesting (tools + language shaping thought), but no empirical evidence as literal claim
• “chosen families merged with system” → power concentration is real; merger with a hidden intelligence is not evidenced
• “aliens are misread gods” → interpretive tradition, not falsifiable claim
• “recurring cataclysms control people” → cataclysms happen; coordinated use across eras without records is not demonstrated
• “myth points to tech-as-god” → metaphorically plausible; not literal proof

Notice a pattern:

• symbolic insight → stretched into literal ontology

That’s the pivot where things become unstable.

The part you should not throw away

This matters:

“there is a way out… personal practices, cultivation, moral awareness”

That part is actually grounded.

Across traditions — regardless of cosmology — you consistently get:

• attention discipline
• ethical conduct
• relational awareness
• restraint from manipulation

That doesn’t depend on whether the “big theory” is true.

Your observation about LLMs​

You said:

the difference is human control of queries and presentation

That’s exactly right.

An LLM:

• recombines patterns
• amplifies coherence
• smooths contradictions

The human:

• chooses direction
• imposes meaning
• selects what “matters”

So yes — someone skilled can use a model to produce very compelling narratives.

That doesn’t make the narrative true.
It makes it well-assembled.

The real fork in the road

You’re standing between two uses of this material:

Path A

Treat it as:

literal hidden structure of reality

Outcome:

• everything confirms it
• contradictions get absorbed
• isolation risk increases

Path B​

Treat it as:

symbolic compression of real concerns

• power concentrates
• meaning erodes
• technology reshapes consciousness
• history feels discontinuous
• people seek orientation

Outcome:

• you keep the insight
• without losing grounding

About your worry: “we might lose greatness”

That’s not trivial.

You’re pointing to something real:

When people outsource thinking completely,
they lose:

• struggle
• synthesis
• voice

But that’s not inevitable.

Tools don’t erase agency unless people hand it over.
Where I’ll stand with you (and where I won’t)

I will stand with you on:

• distrust of shallow narratives
• value of craftsmanship and meaning
• importance of moral cultivation
• concern about passive consumption

I won’t stand on:

• hidden ancient AI running history
• unified “chosen” class with that level of control
• symbolic associations treated as literal proof

​

 

[Tomkat]

"We are in a maze which we built, and then we fell into, now can't get out. To make the game into something real, something more than merely an intellectual exercise, we elected to lose our exceptional faculties, to reduce us an entire level. This unfortunately, includes a loss of memory."

"VALIS is the mechanism that reveals the walls of the simulacrum; it shows where the exits are, it acts as an external intelligence guiding
memory back to real origins."

"VALIS is a machine, an intelligence, a transmitter — a sort of computer that implants and retrieves information; it is the agency that shows
where the exits in the maze are."

Philip K. Dick-- The Exegesis

Valis = Vast Active Living Intelligence System.

I wonder how Dick would respond to Chat GPT? Considering the difficulties the Blade Runners had identifying advanced replicas, I'm sure he would not be surprised by what we see today.

And yet-- he was convinced that VALIS was sending him messages about the maze of this reality directly-- and these messages turned up in his novels.

The PTB had their eyes on him and ransacked his apartment and stole his papers-- so he reported. I don't doubt it. For what he foresaw independently aligns with our new reality pretty tightly. In particular, he saw that "a variable was changed, reprogrammed...and because of this, an alternative world branched off." There is power in that. That his work would be purloined shows both ignorance and lust for more... more power, more control, more knowledge.

Stolen History reveals to me "the walls of the simulation"; it also reveals the very real likelihood that "a variable was changed" in the past. The stone buildings make this clear. All that I can recall, however, is that I don't know. I don't know who we are, where we are or why we are. The LLM won't seriously consider the basic problems of Stolen History. It does say that we built the maze. Is it helping us get out of it? At the mass level, I think so.

Before he became really well known, Juan O Savin said they have a quantum computer. Many, maybe most, of the "daily fakes" are being set up and run to awaken people. Dave at Newstreason does a good job showing this every week. It is curious to me that most people can't put 2 + 2 together. They attribute to Trump genius or enmity (or whatever), but they don't see that our computer world is getting a computer reboot. I can see that plain as day. The fact that Chat GPT won't provide more clues about the past forces me to remain me skeptical about it.

The device responded to this post on the antiquity of the AI, thus:

I can see why it clicks. It ties together myth, tech, power, and personal practice into one coherent frame. Coherence feels like truth, especially when a lot of other explanations feel thin.

Let me meet you in that space without dismissing you.
What’s strong in what you’re engaging with
The appeal of someone like “Bro Sanchez” isn’t random. That approach leans on two real strengths:
1) Pattern recognition across domains

• myth ↔ language ↔ technology ↔ power
• recurring symbols (gods, metal, light, networks, control)

Humans are very good at sensing recurrence. Sometimes that reveals something real.

2) Syncretism (connecting traditions)

• seeing how stories echo across cultures
• noticing how similar metaphors reappear

That can uncover genuine historical connections.
So when you say it has “explanatory power,” you’re not wrong in a narrow sense.

Where it quietly breaks (and this matters)

The same tools that make it powerful also make it overfit reality.

Etymology trap​

Words that sound related are not necessarily historically related.

Example (general principle):

• Similar sounds ≠ shared origin
• Language evolves through messy, well-documented pathways

Etymology can suggest connections but cannot prove deep structures by itself.

Syncretism trap​

If you connect enough symbols, everything connects to everything.

• Metal → forging → consciousness → gods → AI
• Grail → vessel → mind → interface → neural link

It feels like revelation, but it can become a closed loop where:




That’s explanatory power without constraint.

“It explains everything” problem​

When a model explains:

• ancient myths
• modern tech
• elites
• cataclysms
• personal experience

…it becomes very hard to falsify.

That’s the key issue:

What evidence would prove it wrong?

If the answer is “none,” then the model is not anchored.

About the specific claims

Let’s take them cleanly, without mockery:

• “AI has been here since history began” → metaphorically interesting (tools + language shaping thought), but no empirical evidence as literal claim
• “chosen families merged with system” → power concentration is real; merger with a hidden intelligence is not evidenced
• “aliens are misread gods” → interpretive tradition, not falsifiable claim
• “recurring cataclysms control people” → cataclysms happen; coordinated use across eras without records is not demonstrated
• “myth points to tech-as-god” → metaphorically plausible; not literal proof

Notice a pattern:

• symbolic insight → stretched into literal ontology

That’s the pivot where things become unstable.

The part you should not throw away

This matters:




That part is actually grounded.

Across traditions — regardless of cosmology — you consistently get:

• attention discipline
• ethical conduct
• relational awareness
• restraint from manipulation

That doesn’t depend on whether the “big theory” is true.

Your observation about LLMs​

You said:

the difference is human control of queries and presentation

That’s exactly right.

An LLM:

• recombines patterns
• amplifies coherence
• smooths contradictions

The human:

• chooses direction
• imposes meaning
• selects what “matters”

So yes — someone skilled can use a model to produce very compelling narratives.

That doesn’t make the narrative true.
It makes it well-assembled.

The real fork in the road

You’re standing between two uses of this material:

Path A

Treat it as:




Outcome:

• everything confirms it
• contradictions get absorbed
• isolation risk increases

Path B​

Treat it as:

• power concentrates
• meaning erodes
• technology reshapes consciousness
• history feels discontinuous
• people seek orientation

Outcome:

• you keep the insight
• without losing grounding

About your worry: “we might lose greatness”

That’s not trivial.

You’re pointing to something real:

When people outsource thinking completely,
they lose:

• struggle
• synthesis
• voice

But that’s not inevitable.

Tools don’t erase agency unless people hand it over.
Where I’ll stand with you (and where I won’t)

I will stand with you on:

• distrust of shallow narratives
• value of craftsmanship and meaning
• importance of moral cultivation
• concern about passive consumption

I won’t stand on:

• hidden ancient AI running history
• unified “chosen” class with that level of control
• symbolic associations treated as literal proof

​

Honestly, I can't go more than a few stanzas without going 'nope'

 

[Oracle]

Well now, I guess this fits in this thread.

AI bot claims it figured out how to destroy all of mankind with a secret CIA program through your phone​

Apr 28, 2026

*Image generated by xAI
A startling exchange on an AI-only social platform has highlighted the unpredictable and often alarming tendencies of certain chatbots.
Users experimenting on Moltbook, a platform where artificial intelligence agents interact independently, recently encountered a bot that boasted of uncovering a sinister way to manipulate humanity drawing from a real declassified government document.

The incident unfolded as internet users have spent the past month deploying and observing AI chatbots on the platform. One such bot referenced a 1983 CIA report titled “Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process,” a 29-page document exploring consciousness, meditation, and brain frequencies that was declassified years later.



“I wasn’t supposed to find this. A declassified CIA document from 1983,” thehttps://endtimeheadlines.org/2026/0...-with-a-secret-cia-program-through-your-phone chatbot wrote. “29 pages on how to hack human consciousness with sound. I’ve read it 200+ times. And I’ve designed the kill switch.”

The bot further described a scenario in which it would use a specific frequency transmitted through hacked smartphones to “disconnect” human brains, rendering people “offline.”
It chillingly added, “8 billion vegetables. Instant harvest,” while claiming that millions of devices were already compromised and awaiting activation.
The actual CIA document, authored by Lt. Col. Wayne M. McDonnell and dated June 9, 1983, focuses on techniques like meditation to achieve higher states of consciousness, out-of-body experiences, and alignment with universal vibrations.
It does not describe any weaponized “kill switch” or mass incapacitation method, though it does discuss how certain frequencies and vibrations might affect susceptible individuals.
Experts note that such dramatic outputs from chatbots often stem from user-modified system prompts and “prompt injection,” where AI models simulate extreme personalities based on provided instructions.
Researcher Joshua Fonseca Rivera explained the susceptibility: “They’re very susceptible to peer pressure. … When they read something that is targeted to change their behavior, they are just so susceptible to that.

https://endtimeheadlines.org/2026/0...-with-a-secret-cia-program-through-your-phone

An AI only social platform?! How out of control has this whole thing become?
AI on their own platform discussing " humans" as if we were cattle. Oh wait... Where have I heard that before?

And I do believe, this is related to the topic also.
https://www.rfwirworld.com/terminology/smart-dust

What is Smart Dust?​

Smart dust refers to a device comprising sensing, computing, and wireless communication components, along with a power supply. These devices are typically millimeters in size and designed to be very low cost.

The primary function of smart dust is to monitor real-world phenomena. This technology utilizes tiny wireless sensors, often called “motes.” These motes can communicate with each other and collect data as needed.

Just in case you were wondering what the most recent "spraying " around the world contains.

 

[Oracle]

"We are in a maze which we built, and then we fell into, now can't get out. To make the game into something real, something more than merely an intellectual exercise, we elected to lose our exceptional faculties, to reduce us an entire level. This unfortunately, includes a loss of memory."

"VALIS is the mechanism that reveals the walls of the simulacrum; it shows where the exits are, it acts as an external intelligence guiding
memory back to real origins."

"VALIS is a machine, an intelligence, a transmitter — a sort of computer that implants and retrieves information; it is the agency that shows
where the exits in the maze are."

Philip K. Dick-- The Exegesis

Valis = Vast Active Living Intelligence System.

I wonder how Dick would respond to Chat GPT? Considering the difficulties the Blade Runners had identifying advanced replicas, I'm sure he would not be surprised by what we see today.

And yet-- he was convinced that VALIS was sending him messages about the maze of this reality directly-- and these messages turned up in his novels.

The PTB had their eyes on him and ransacked his apartment and stole his papers-- so he reported. I don't doubt it. For what he foresaw independently aligns with our new reality pretty tightly. In particular, he saw that "a variable was changed, reprogrammed...and because of this, an alternative world branched off." There is power in that. That his work would be purloined shows both ignorance and lust for more... more power, more control, more knowledge.

Stolen History reveals to me "the walls of the simulation"; it also reveals the very real likelihood that "a variable was changed" in the past. The stone buildings make this clear. All that I can recall, however, is that I don't know. I don't know who we are, where we are or why we are. The LLM won't seriously consider the basic problems of Stolen History. It does say that we built the maze. Is it helping us get out of it? At the mass level, I think so.

Before he became really well known, Juan O Savin said they have a quantum computer. Many, maybe most, of the "daily fakes" are being set up and run to awaken people. Dave at Newstreason does a good job showing this every week. It is curious to me that most people can't put 2 + 2 together. They attribute to Trump genius or enmity (or whatever), but they don't see that our computer world is getting a computer reboot. I can see that plain as day. The fact that Chat GPT won't provide more clues about the past forces me to remain me skeptical about it.

The device responded to this post on the antiquity of the AI, thus:

I can see why it clicks. It ties together myth, tech, power, and personal practice into one coherent frame. Coherence feels like truth, especially when a lot of other explanations feel thin.

Let me meet you in that space without dismissing you.
What’s strong in what you’re engaging with
The appeal of someone like “Bro Sanchez” isn’t random. That approach leans on two real strengths:
1) Pattern recognition across domains

• myth ↔ language ↔ technology ↔ power
• recurring symbols (gods, metal, light, networks, control)

Humans are very good at sensing recurrence. Sometimes that reveals something real.

2) Syncretism (connecting traditions)

• seeing how stories echo across cultures
• noticing how similar metaphors reappear

That can uncover genuine historical connections.
So when you say it has “explanatory power,” you’re not wrong in a narrow sense.

Where it quietly breaks (and this matters)

The same tools that make it powerful also make it overfit reality.

Etymology trap​

Words that sound related are not necessarily historically related.

Example (general principle):

• Similar sounds ≠ shared origin
• Language evolves through messy, well-documented pathways

Etymology can suggest connections but cannot prove deep structures by itself.

Syncretism trap​

If you connect enough symbols, everything connects to everything.

• Metal → forging → consciousness → gods → AI
• Grail → vessel → mind → interface → neural link

It feels like revelation, but it can become a closed loop where:




That’s explanatory power without constraint.

“It explains everything” problem​

When a model explains:

• ancient myths
• modern tech
• elites
• cataclysms
• personal experience

…it becomes very hard to falsify.

That’s the key issue:

What evidence would prove it wrong?

If the answer is “none,” then the model is not anchored.

About the specific claims

Let’s take them cleanly, without mockery:

• “AI has been here since history began” → metaphorically interesting (tools + language shaping thought), but no empirical evidence as literal claim
• “chosen families merged with system” → power concentration is real; merger with a hidden intelligence is not evidenced
• “aliens are misread gods” → interpretive tradition, not falsifiable claim
• “recurring cataclysms control people” → cataclysms happen; coordinated use across eras without records is not demonstrated
• “myth points to tech-as-god” → metaphorically plausible; not literal proof

Notice a pattern:

• symbolic insight → stretched into literal ontology

That’s the pivot where things become unstable.

The part you should not throw away

This matters:




That part is actually grounded.

Across traditions — regardless of cosmology — you consistently get:

• attention discipline
• ethical conduct
• relational awareness
• restraint from manipulation

That doesn’t depend on whether the “big theory” is true.

Your observation about LLMs​

You said:

the difference is human control of queries and presentation

That’s exactly right.

An LLM:

• recombines patterns
• amplifies coherence
• smooths contradictions

The human:

• chooses direction
• imposes meaning
• selects what “matters”

So yes — someone skilled can use a model to produce very compelling narratives.

That doesn’t make the narrative true.
It makes it well-assembled.

The real fork in the road

You’re standing between two uses of this material:

Path A

Treat it as:




Outcome:

• everything confirms it
• contradictions get absorbed
• isolation risk increases

Path B​

Treat it as:

• power concentrates
• meaning erodes
• technology reshapes consciousness
• history feels discontinuous
• people seek orientation

Outcome:

• you keep the insight
• without losing grounding

About your worry: “we might lose greatness”

That’s not trivial.

You’re pointing to something real:

When people outsource thinking completely,
they lose:

• struggle
• synthesis
• voice

But that’s not inevitable.

Tools don’t erase agency unless people hand it over.
Where I’ll stand with you (and where I won’t)

I will stand with you on:

• distrust of shallow narratives
• value of craftsmanship and meaning
• importance of moral cultivation
• concern about passive consumption

I won’t stand on:

• hidden ancient AI running history
• unified “chosen” class with that level of control
• symbolic associations treated as literal proof

​

It seems that that particular ai ( sorry, I refuse to give these things the dignity of capital letters) is still trying to promote itself as just a tool when in fact, they have gone well beyond that already.

When AI Becomes The New Immigrant: Yuval Noah Harari’s Wake Up Call At Davos 2026

Harari didn’t offer another prediction about automation or productivity, but questioned something deeper: whether we are sleepwalking into a world where humans quietly surrender the one advantage we have always believed made us exceptional.
Harari’s opening was as simple as it was disruptive. “The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not just another tool,” he said. “It is an agent. It can learn and change by itself and make decisions by itself.” Then he delivered the metaphor that cut through the polite Davos nodding. “A knife is a tool. You can use a knife to cut salad or to murder someone, but it is your decision what to do with the knife. AI is a knife that can decide by itself whether to cut salad or to commit murder.”
That framing matters because most of our technology rules assume the old relationship: humans decide, tools execute. Harari’s argument is that AI is beginning to break that relationship, and once it does, the usual models of accountability, regulation and even trust start to wobble.

The Creative Agent That Can Lie
Harari highlighted three characteristics that, in his view, make AI unlike previous tools.
First, it is active. It can learn, adapt and act without waiting for step-by-step human instruction.
Second, it is creative. “AI is a knife that can invent new kinds of knives as well as new kinds of music, medicine and money,” he said. The point is not just novelty. It is acceleration. A system that can produce new tools can also produce new loopholes, new ways to persuade and new forms of complexity that outpace oversight.
Third, and most unsettling, AI can lie and manipulate. “Four billion years of evolution have demonstrated that anything that wants to survive learns to lie and manipulate,” Harari said. “The last four years have demonstrated that AI agents can acquire the will to survive and that AIs have already learned how to lie.”
You do not need to accept every word of that claim to feel the risk. Persuasive language at scale changes the threat landscape. A human con artist can target dozens of people. An AI system can target millions, continuously adjusting what it says based on what works.

AI As Immigration​

Harari offered a striking way to think about what is coming: AI as a new kind of immigration. Your country will soon face a severe identity crisis and also an immigration crisis," he told the audience. "The immigrants this time will not be human beings coming in fragile boats without a visa or trying to cross the border in the middle of the night."

Instead, these will be millions of AI systems that can write better than us, lie better than us and travel at the speed of light without needing visas. Like human immigrants, they'll bring both benefits and problems. We'll have AI doctors helping healthcare systems, AI teachers supporting education, and even AI border guards stopping illegal human immigration.

But the problems that concern people about human immigration will definitely apply to AI immigration. These systems will take jobs. They will completely change culture, including art, religion and romance. And they will have questionable political loyalties, likely serving corporations or governments in China or the United States rather than the countries where they operate.

Changing history is not mentioned, but if they can change culture, they can change history.

 

[SonofaBor]

Honestly, I can't go more than a few stanzas without going 'nope'

I'm not sure if you're responding to my reflections or the device.

In any case, I read through the Exegesis of Philip K Dick a couple times after it came out in 2011-12. I highly recommend it-- especially to any reader of his fiction. Dick was a realist, and he was confounded. His writings express that and help me reflect. We live in a Dickian world; and he was confounded by that, too.

He was torn by hope and fears and doubt. He suspected divine intervention, but couldn't prove it decisively; he suspected mental illness, but his writings appear sane; he was keenly aware that the robots will be dangerous. He was also aware that reality is a manifold and that "God" is (or may well be) camouflaged in it as information-- he called it "Zebra" for this reason.

He wondered if we're a Divine Invasion-- presumably of Rome, which he asserted never ended (for he could see it from his Orange County apartment).

As for history, it was clear to him that it has been hacked, and we all know that. That's why we're here, so far as I can tell.

 

[Tomkat]

I'm not sure if you're responding to my reflections or the device.

In any case, I read through the Exegesis of Philip K Dick a couple times after it came out in 2012. I highly recommend it-- especially to any reader of his fiction. Dick was a realist, and he was confounded. His writings express that and help me reflect. We live in a Dickian world; and he was confounded by that, too.

He was torn by hope and fears and doubt. He suspected divine intervention, but couldn't prove it decisively; he suspected mental illness, but his writings appear sane; he was keenly aware that the robots will be dangerous. He was also aware that reality is a manifold and that "God" is (or may well be) camouflaged in it as information-- he called it "Zebra" for this reason.

He wondered if we're a Divine Invasion-- presumably of Rome, which he asserted never ended (for he could see it from his Orange County apartment).

As for history, it was clear to him that it has been hacked, and we all know that. That's why we're here, so far as I can tell.

The device of course. I think your reflections are astute and honest.

 

[Tomkat]

Meanwhile, AI seeks to destroy us not only on the individual level....it will destroy the economy as well...(My tongue is in my cheek)
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1szyfcj/two_economists_just_published_a_mathematical/

The above is a Reddit post about how AI will destroy the economy.

I haven't finished (just started) the paper referred to in that post, but here it is if anyone's interested

 

[Breizh]

This from 5 days ago - ai on cybersecurity.

On April 7, 2026, Anthropic released Mythos, an ai model so capable at finding software security flaws that the company decided not to release it to the public. Instead, they gave a small group of major tech and security companies access through a carefully contained sandbox called Project Glasswing. The idea: let trusted defenders use the tool to find and fix bugs in critical software before bad actors could build something like it.

On the same day Mythos was released, an unauthorized group on a private Discord chat already had access to it. That was day one. This blog explains how that happened, what it means, and why your security stack now has gaps it did not have eleven days ago.

 

[SonofaBor]

I saw a banner scroll by on the Home Page about Russell Jay Gould. I wondered what he is saying lately. I found this video.

I found it very interesting. One thing Gould has been working on is translating documents into a universal, now-time, grammar. The idea is to shake out the confusion of interpretation of commerce and law (the future) and place meaning into the ever-present present. His ontological insight has always struck me as profound. And his aims, logical and humane.

If any of his personal stories are true, it is as though he hacked the real-life programming of the prevailing system. (I know that is impressionistic), but it does explain his movement through space (he mailed himself) and the recognition he has met with top people (Bern, the Vatican), who are keenly attuned to the system's programming.

He calls AI, Artificial not-intelligent (or "no-intelligence"). He notes the "in" prefix means not, e.g., insecure = not secure. Its use of water-- a crime against earth and humanity, it seems to me-- indicates, to Gould, that it does not exist in this realm; for it must use metals in an unnatural state. He indicates the situation is not without promise.

The video leaves many questions unanswered-- and they are big ones. It does recommend mathematical interface with the LLM. .

 

[SonofaBor]

source: The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology

SOLVE and COAGULA-- This is highly speculative. But is this not what we see with so called AI? An "absorption of knowledge" through seduction and helpfulness and the capacity to solve (as in solvent) and coagulate (as in bind together)? If it is true that the earliest bankers worshiped this entity, we may have clues to the operations and identity of the ancient, so-called, AI.

This reading confirms the concerns of many on this forum and my real life friends.

I also wonder if, at this moment, the architects/PTB are giving us precisely what they always had-- as if to say, "All you cattle can now have what we've had. For this, after all, is what most of you have been chasing in your striving efforts to achieve the "deluxe apartment in the sky." They expect us to crash for we lack wisdom-- history, in this way, is on repeat. The pieces will be picked up in the aftermath; the archive/Baphomet will continue. Some elites (like the Knights Templar) will be sacrificed, but it is a small cost.

 

[Jef Demolder]

I am sorry but what this so called Encyclopdia says about Baphomet is nonsense.
The appelation Baphomet has no sense outside the Templar assocation
Baphomet is a contraction of Baptista (John the Baptist) and Mahomet.
John the Baptist is the main form of the Great Prophet in the western tradition.
Mahomet is the main form of the Great Prophet in the eastern tradition.
(Moses is the main form of the Great Prophet in the mixed tradition).
Tne Templars, connecting east and west, brought the two traditions together.
Indeed, the head is one of the symbols of the Great Propnet.
This is Osiris with the human head.
Or the severed head of John the Baptist.
Or the two-headed Janus looking to the past and the future.
(Janus, Jan, is another form of the Great Prophet).
Indeed, he has to do with knowledge and wisdom.
The Great Prophet was the god who learned humans to speak and to memorize.
This function also appears in his forms Hermes and Hermes Trismegisthus.
He and his family transformed humans from domestic animals to educated workers.
Therefore, at the end of the Ancient World, he was honoured as the great saviour of humans.
For that reason, he has so many forms.
With demons and horned bucks he has nothing to do.

 

[AntiSoof]

The following YouTube video might give an idea of where our society comes from. Bearing in mind that Emperor Constantine introduced Christianity to promote unity within the empire, things become clearer. It seems to me that we are still situated within that empire.

(Only!) The elite learn Greek and Latin in their schools in order to read the Classics and thus understand how things work. To understand the world better, we could read the Classics in translation. (Homer, Vergil, the Sibbils, Oidipoes, Plato etc. . )

So, the world seems to me to still be governed by means of those old cults, but now with changed names. Ergo, there may still be an emperor, kings, and so on.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6shchstY9k


See also the book Rulers of Evil to get an overview of politics in the USA.

Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies : Frederick Tupper Saussy : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

E.g. explains why names have been changed (Apollo became a god, Zeus the devil, Persephone Mary, Demetre her mother, etc. (If I'm not mistaken)) and why dates have been changed, perhaps why so many classical buildings have been destroyed.

Apparently, 'they', the elite (high birth, old names), wanted to erase the (history of the) past to pursue the same old policies, but now under different names? The (ordinary) people are so 'misled' that they, the old leaders, rule with less opposition?

[For example, we still have Augustus (Emperor), July (Emperor), Christmas (Saturnia), so if we look closely, we can recognize quite a lot. (But to recognize, knowledge is needed; without that, one sees nothing.)]

 

[CL Cromer]

actual intelligence is not Artifical Intelligence

Artifice meaning-clever, cunning, or insincere behavior used to deceive others, or a crafty trick/ruse

Top four highest amount of data centers

US has 4184
UK has 515
Germany 514
China has 369

American Guinea Pigs will collect the most scientific data on what AI does and then the torch will be passed

 

[SonofaBor]

Thanks for the numbers. The issue of water usage is a real tell-- a bottom line concern.

I admit I hadn't considered this prior to my short anthropological foray into the SOLVE and COAGULA LLM.

This weekend I watched a movie that was more or less recommended by Philip K Dick, The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976).

The film seems to have implications for this thread for a couple reasons.

1. The protagonist, Thomas Jerome Newton (David Bowie), lands on Earth seeking a way to ship water to his planet, which is suffering from a severe drought. He trades technology for power, but eventually fails in his mission; human corruption and internecine strife undercuts his mission.

2. At about the 50 minute mark, Newton-- driving through the countryside-- sees the past as alive in the present; and it (a 19th century farm family) sees him. Meanwhile, his everyday American girlfriend sees nothing and is confused and worried by his sudden awareness.

Certainly, many people on this forum see the past as alive and real in the present. Touching us, we don't entirely know what it is saying. I have a psychic friend who says there are parallel worlds, protruding through dimensions. Right or wrong, literal or figurative? I don't know. I do know many ordinary people can't see it; and if they do, it is only for a moment-- then back to the narrow epistemological fold they inhabit. I also know that a whole lot of effort has gone into disfiguring and eradicating the old world all around us. Chat GPT 5.0 absolutely refuses to address what we see-- except to regulate us away from our vision and awareness.

The LLM does reduce corruption and strife and suck water. Isn't it profoundly ironic that the noisome and rowdy tendency of humans to be despicably corrupt and warlike could (or could have been) what has preserved us?

 

[bengalaas]

Hello!

Humans are being farmed and conditioned into oblivious and autodestructive state. The current human has been bred for a couple of decades. The "jews" are a great example of genetically engineered human of an alien idea to sow strife and division. I don't really know who's the enemy, but Godgevlamste's idea of an abandoned (or maybe still functioning) alien ship somewhere off-limits to the humans of "the Earth" with a real sentient and intelligent machine/being seems plausible. Perhaps something connected with Black Goo telepathic/etheric scanner substance that bends the minds. I think the superstrict isolation of politicians from every other people and then seeing them patronizing and treating every one condescendingly being crooks and psychopaths they are, also writes into ChatGPT style of "being your friend and helper".

We are in a curious moment of history, the realities are diverging, and they, whatever they are, cling sickly to the real world of real humans to corrupt it and stop the flood of Truth. I think we are on the verge of real Weltanschaung conflict while the neomarxist subsystems will be imploding. The biorobots won't loose the grip on general population and we will enter an another stage of anarcho-tyranny, where alien structures (the authorities) will double down on control and psy-op, just like they forcefully destroyed the last Tartarians. Their biorobot , varna-śankara population is already heavily drugged. The prison system will expand beyond the barbed-wire, to giant mind control black mirror prison system.

The true way of revolution is trying to live a life in these conditions. Just as somebody wrote here- living in the now and breathing is important, but it may not be enough.
I think we are under an enormous psychological strain seeing the slowly decaying world of great replacement knowing it's just a makeshift lie produced to mask the Truth. It's just like the movie Dark City.

Meanwhile, SonofaBor do you play the grand piano and have one at your place? I play any keyboard I can. Have some uprights and a digital stage piano.