Discussion feat Ab the Fakeologist, Tim Ozman, JLB

Topics include:

The ‘dead internet theory’

The WEF’s ‘own nothing and be happy’ mantra

Whether or not ‘objective morality’ is a real thing

How many people really live on earth today (and how many do we want)?

Is all government bad?

What is in store for next generation of humans?

The transgender agenda aka EGI

This is the mp3 upload of the show, which was originally streamed 17-Apr-2022.

[To download, click the little arrow-box icon on the rop-right of the player above]

The archived video of the livestream is also available here.


Want to hear more conversations like this?

Check out the recent 3/11 Grand Spectacular Megacall

311 Special Part 1

You can stream or download the call.

Just click the thumbnail above or click HERE.


 

8 thoughts on “Discussion feat Ab the Fakeologist, Tim Ozman, JLB

  • 18-April-2022 at 8:16 am
    Permalink

    “Morality” is commonly used in an emotional sense, not logical. A good example is choosing what’s ok to eat.
    The only reason I, or we, think it’s ok to eat a pig and not a cat or dog is purely emotional.
    All of these things that we think are fucked up about the world are not objectively wrong, or evil. They are so because of our emotional reaction to them. So where do these emotions come from? They simply are not logical. We form investment bias, and things of the sort, but maybe there are god given emotions. Great topic

  • 19-April-2022 at 8:05 pm
    Permalink

    Man I love it when you keep people honest JLB, I think its one of your best talents. More of this please, so good when this panel gets together!

  • 20-April-2022 at 7:50 am
    Permalink

    If the underlying assumption is that the guidestones were created by the same people who put us through the last couple of years, and the same people who told us “you’ll own nothing and be happy”, and the same people who dabble in eugenics and so on, then why would you or Ab, or anyone for that matter, take the text on the guidestones at face value?

    What is the point of agreeing with the text in principle, given the unreliability of the narrator and what we now know, having seen their intentions first hand?

    You did mention that the last time JLB.com members had this discussion was a few years ago, presumably before the world completely changed. Has that experience not altered your stance towards the probable intent and subtext of the wording?

    Are you still willing to give the Guidestones the benefit of the doubt, after everything that transpired since? “Guidestones bad mmkay” seems a pretty rational stance, given the circumstances.

    • 20-April-2022 at 8:05 am
      Permalink

      If the underlying assumption is that the guidestones were created by the same people who put us through the last couple of years

      That is not my underlying assumption. I can’t speak for Tim Ozman or Ab.

      I was interested in discussing the ideas written on the stones, independent of the stones themselves.

      I thought that was clear from what I said but in future I can try to be even more clear on this kind of thing.

      • 20-April-2022 at 8:44 am
        Permalink

        I thought that was clear from what I said but in future I can try to
        be even more clear on this kind of thing.

        That’s the right approach, in my opinion,

        “Paradigm Lock” is a term I heard recently.

        It’s the tendency to drift (or snap) back to a default mode of thinking despite being asked to consider the topic without existing bias and/or assumptions.

        It results from training, either absorbed or self-inflicted, and to avoid it requires strong mental discipline.

        Ab has been stuck in the doom paradigm for some time. I can’t blame him, Canada had it far worse than elsewhere, and they appear to be leading the way for the Great Reset. It’s natural he would be stuck in a mindset where the Guidestones represent ‘evil’ intent.

        For him to shift mental gears to a more neutral ‘face value’ discussion, that different context would need to be repeatedly and clearly restated at the start of every question or point, or as he demonstrated on this call, the paradigm-locked will subconsciously and automatically switch back to defaults.

        If paradigm lock is a ‘real’ phenomenon then it requires acceptance and/or additional effort to overcome, not frustration. Either by trying harder to get the other person to switch contexts—if only to be assured a fair hearing by the audience—or by expecting and tolerating a discussion that stays on those rails.

        ——

        Back to my original question, though: what is the point of discussing the Guidestones from a more neutral stance, given everything that transpired over the last couple of years?

        Isn’t it naïve to even entertain the idea that they represent good ideas in principle, having lived through over two years of intentional and completely unjustifiable fear and uncertainty?

        A few years ago, I could see the value as a thought experiment. To do so now seems rather tone deaf, like discussing a serial killer’s manifesto without discussing the murders.

        • 20-April-2022 at 9:07 am
          Permalink

          Back to my original question, though: what is the point of discussing the Guidestones from a more neutral stance

          My original point was that if a person were to evaluate the inscriptions for themselves, they would likely realise the inscriptions are not as nefarious or evil-sounding as many people seem to assume.

          Beyond that, several of the inscriptions involve or lead to topics or questions which are worth discussion in their own right (imo).

          Eugenics, abortion, world population, society, responsibilities and rights, etc.

          Isn’t it naïve to even entertain the idea that they represent good ideas in principle

          I don’t know or have any strong opinions as to who made the guidestones, what their motivations are / were, or anything like that.

          I was trying to look at the inscriptions and see if the other panelists (and hopefully the listeners) would agree or disagree with the ideas in theory.

          Basically separating the message from the messenger (with the messenger in this case being an unknown entity).

  • 27-April-2022 at 7:04 pm
    Permalink

    Is there a place on this site where a guy can make random off topic comments?

    That’s one of the things I liked about discord, it had the off topic rambling house. I liked being able to make a comment without any pretense or obligation

    I’ll probably never go back to commenting on the website.

    too bad this isn’t discord, or else I would link that pearl jam song “do the evolution” 😆

  • 29-April-2022 at 8:35 am
    Permalink

    I have had the same thoughts about the guidestones as JLB in the past, i.e. they are not by themselves super objectionable and many people would agree with them. But I also agree with Tim and Ab that the catch is in the details of implementation and who has the power to implement them. Nevertheless having a knee jerk reaction where Ab tries his best to not admit any one of them is reasonable at all just because they are the guidestones is unreasonable. Its another somewhat conspiritarded trope.

    When I was younger I was more taken in by Utopian ideals but now I think that the most evil is always done by people whose motivation is to make things good very fast but in reality I don’t think we can fix this realm. People are selfish assholes driven left and right by their cravings and aversions. No system overlaid on top of that will ever fix that issue, the solution is internal and I don’t think this is our only life or realm that we will experience. People bickering and being dicks is an inerrant law of the universe ;). Best just learn to come to peace with the chaos.

Leave a Reply