Tucker Carlson: What you’re watching is not a political movement. It’s evil!

Tucker Carlson: What you’re watching is not a political movement. It’s evil!

On April 21, 2023, former Fox News host, Tucker Carlson was the keynote speaker at The Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary gala.

He used his 36-minute speech to talk about the current political movement that wants to sexually mutilate and abort children as”evil”.

Carlson talked about the growing need for prayer in America and emphasized that the main cultural debates we’re having today – over abortion, transgenderism, and sexual indoctrination for kids – are not normal political topics.

Rather, they’re primarily spiritual fights.

He called some pro-choice arguments ‘evil’, and equated abortion with ‘child sacrifice’.

To Carlson, these matters are nonnegotiable but he also found himself caught up in these ‘fraudulent debates’.

Here is the full video and the abbreviated text below:

Tucker Carlson said:

There is no way to assess, say, the transgender movement with [a political] mindset. Policies papers don’t account for it at all.

You have people who are saying, “I have an idea, let’s castrate the next generation. Let’s sexually mutilate children.”

I’m sorry, that’s not a political debate. What?

That has nothing to do with politics. What’s the outcome we’re desiring here? An androgenous population? Are we arguing for that?

Tucker went on to discuss abortion.

He said:

If you say, “I think abortion is always bad” or “Well, I think sometimes it’s necessary,” that’s a debate I’m familiar with. But if you’re telling me that abortion is a positive good?

What are you saying? Well, you’re arguing for child sacrifice … There’s no policy goal entwined with that. No, that’s a theological phenomenon (emphasis added).

Tucker then declared this was a political system of evil by saying;

None of this makes sense in conventional political terms. When people, or crowds of people, or the largest crowd of people at all, which is the federal government, the largest human organization in human history decide that the goal is to destroy things, destruction for its own sake, “Hey, let’s tear it down,” what you’re watching is not a political movement.

It’s evil.

‘This is not necessarily just a Christian notion, this is kind of a, I would say, widely agreed-upon understanding of good and evil.

‘Good is characterized by order, calmness, tranquility, peace, whatever you want to call it, lack of conflict, cleanliness. Cleanliness is next to godliness.

‘And evil is characterized by their opposites. Violence, hate, disorder, division, disorganization, and filth.

‘So, if you are all in on the things that produce the latter basket of outcomes, what you’re really advocating for is evil.

‘That’s just true. I’m not calling for religious war. Far from it. I’m merely calling for an acknowledgement of what we’re watching.’

He railed against the ‘herd mentality’ many fell into during ‘George Floyd and COVID’, and people are not ‘trained’ to speak out against the ideas they disagree with.

‘We should stop engaging in these totally fraudulent debates, where we are using the terms that we used in 1991 when I started at [The Heritage Foundation], as if maybe I could just win the debate if I marshaled more facts.

‘I’ve tried. That doesn’t work. And two, maybe we should all take just 10 minutes a day to say a prayer about it. I’m serious. Why not?

‘And I’m saying that to you not as some kind of evangelist, I’m literally saying that to you as an Episcopalian, the Samaritans of our time. I’m coming to you from the most humble and lowly theological position you can. I’m literally an Episcopalian.

‘And even I have concluded it might be worth taking just 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to say a prayer for the future, and I hope you will.’

Soon after Tucker Carlson’s speech, he was fired by the Fox News Corp. without a reason why.

Two days after he was let go from Fox, Tucker Carlson posted a video on Twitter talking about a lack of honest political debate in the media.

He said, “When you step away from the noise for a few days, how nice some people are, and how hilarious some are.”

“The other thing you notice when you take a little time off is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are. They’re completely irrelevant. They mean nothing. In five years we won’t even remember we heard them. Trust me, as somebody who participated,” he said.

“Where can you still find Americans saying true things?

There aren’t many places left but there are some and that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.”



Peter Thiel Warns of the Antichrist

Peter Thiel Warns of the Antichrist

Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and Palantir, and the first outside investor in Facebook, has been on a speaking tour discussing theological themes such as the Antichrist and the Apocalypse in relation to scientific and technological progress.

Thiel’s concern is the lack of progress, and he brought that concern to the world’s oldest and most prestigious debating society, The Oxford Union, as the inaugural speaker of the Union’s bicentennial year.

His speech was a full-throated defense of classical liberalism within the context of Christian apocalypticism.

He opened the speech with the question, “What is the antonym of diversity?” Answer: “University.”

That is the challenge of our age, whether institutions such as universities will carry on as zombie-like enforcers of ideological justifications for stagnation or whether they will rediscover their role as vibrant centers for debate, the purpose for which the Oxford Union was created.

Thiel believes globalization is the Antichrist, the Antichrist is the antecedent to the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelations and only a turn toward Jesus Christ can save humanity from annihilation.

That the technology of moving atoms is so stagnant that the word “tech” is now typically used to refer to information technology. Apart from the world of bits, technological progress has been stagnant.

Scientific debate is suppressed, and topics such as Darwinism and climate science are off limits. Our industrial economy is destroying the earth, and artificial intelligence will rise up and kill or enslave us.

Thiel argues that we need to reclaim the Christian philosophical and religious traditions in the West or face destruction. The eclipse of Shakespeare by revolutionary literature such as I, Rigoberta Menchu, demonstrates a crisis within the humanities and a crisis of classical liberalism.

According to Thiel, government suppression makes real progress impossible, and the corrupt grantmaking system and academic politics churn out endless (often unverifiable) journal articles but no flying cars or cold fusion.

The mounting intensity of his political spending traces his evolution from an economic and social libertarian to a “Dark Enlightenment” and Christian-nationalist authoritarian.

In 2004, Thiel organized a conference at Stanford University to honor his mentor, philosopher and political anthropologist René Girard. The paper he wrote for that conference, “The Straussian Moment,” was a metaphysical effort to assign meaning to 9/11 and its aftermath.

The quandary we face in the 21st century post-9/11, Thiel writes, begins with the death of God in the West.

Having lost any commitment to the Christian philosophical and religious traditions that once prevailed, we no longer question ourselves in the right way — if we question ourselves at all.

The argument starts with the political correctness debates of university life in the ’90s and the controversies at Stanford University about Western civilization, both the course and the historical reality the course purports to study. Thiel argues that we need to reclaim those traditions in the West or face destruction.

The eclipse of Shakespeare by revolutionary literature such as I, Rigoberta Menchu, demonstrates a crisis within the humanities and a crisis of classical liberalism. The rebuttal to that was that the humanities don’t matter. What matters, we are told, is science.

The achievements of the Manhattan Project and similar government-led triumphs were seen as leaving behind the old world of humanities and debates over whether to read or cancel dead white European males.

Thiel argues that scientism is the rebuttal to classical liberalism. But is there a rebuttal to this rebuttal? Science isn’t really progressing as it was in the past. The Manhattan Project is long gone.

Scientific debate is suppressed, and topics such as Darwinism and climate science are off-limits. Apart from the world of bits, technological progress has been stagnant. The technology of moving atoms is so stagnant that the word “tech” is now typically used to refer to information technology.

Thiel believes that any system that demands enough power to fulfill the promise of peace and safety is far more of a threat than anything it promises to protect you from. The tech sector is computers, not fusion, not hypersonic air travel because computers are the only tech with much of anything happening.

According to Thiel, government suppression makes real progress impossible. The corrupt grant-making system and academic politics churn out endless (often unverifiable) journal articles but no flying cars or cold fusion.

While significant on its own terms, the mounting intensity of Thiel’s political spending traces his evolution from an economic and social libertarian to a “Dark Enlightenment” and Christian-nationalist authoritarian. (As a reactionary philosophical and political movement, the Dark Enlightenment is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian.)

Thiel’s argument starts with the political correctness debates of university life in the ’90s and the controversies at Stanford University about Western civilization.

His speeches on deeply theological themes, which combine classical liberalism with Christian apocalypticism, offer a new perspective on the relationship between science, technology, and religion.

Thiel donated tens of millions of dollars to political candidates and causes in US elections, and in the 2022 midterm elections alone, he donated around $32.5 million to the Senate campaigns and political action committees of far-right conservatives J.D. Vance in Ohio and Blake Masters in Arizona.

While controversial, his ideas have sparked important debates about the role of universities and the humanities, the impact of government suppression on scientific progress, and the need to reclaim the Christian philosophical and religious traditions in the West.

Thiel’s views are likely to continue to be discussed and debated in the years to come, as the world grapples with the challenges of globalization, technological progress, and the existential threats facing humanity.

The Dark Enlightenment

The Dark Enlightenment

The Dark Enlightenment is a loosely defined intellectual movement that emerged in the early 21st century. It seeks to challenge the assumptions of the liberal democratic tradition that emerged after the Enlightenment period.

While there is no single, unified Dark Enlightenment theory, its adherents share a broad set of concerns about the current state of society.

They seek to develop alternative models for governance, culture, and social organization.

Its core philosophy can be traced back to two prominent philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger had critiqued the Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationality and the individual, but their philosophies were from different ideological perspectives.

Nietzsche was more of a liberal, individualist, progressive, and anti-traditionalist, while Heidegger advocated for Traditionalism but with more of a modernist approach.

Nietzsche argued that traditional values, particularly those propagated by organized religion and societal norms, hindered the individual’s development of their own unique potential, leading to conformity and suppression of individuality.

He saw traditionalism as a form of herd mentality that stifled creativity, vitality, and self-realization.

Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead” and criticized traditional religious beliefs as outdated and detrimental to human flourishing.

On the other hand, Martin Heidegger, a prominent figure in existentialist and phenomenological philosophy, had emphasized the importance of tradition in shaping human existence and thought.

He saw tradition as an essential aspect of human existence, as it provided a sense of belonging, continuity, and rootedness.

He argued that tradition is understood as the shared history, language, and culture of a community, providing the framework for human existence and giving meaning to human life.

However, Heidegger also warned against the dangers of blindly adhering to tradition without critical reflection, as he believed that tradition could also become stagnant and prevent individuals from engaging authentically with their own existence.

He can be called a Progressive Traditionist who believed that respecting the autonomy of the individual to learn, grow and live in the modern world, rather than blindly following old traditions.

While both Nietzsche nor Heidegger never coined the term, the Dark Enlightenment, their ideas gained momentum in the 21st century as its core philosophers, with the rise of the internet and the proliferation of online communities.

One of the key figures in the modern development of the Dark Enlightenment in our day is Curtis Yarvin, who wrote under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug.

Yarvin’s blog, “Unqualified Reservations,” became a hub for the movement, and he developed a following among tech elites in Silicon Valley.

His writings rejected democracy and called for a return to monarchy and aristocracy. He argued that democracy was inherently flawed because it placed power in the hands of the ignorant masses, who were susceptible to demagogues and populists.

Instead, he advocated for a system in which power was concentrated in the hands of a small elite, who were best equipped to make decisions for the good of society as a whole.

The movement is often associated with the alt-right, a far-right movement that emerged in the United States in the 2010s.

However, not all members consider themselves part of the alt-right, and the two movements have some differences in their ideologies.

At the heart of the Dark Enlightenment is a rejection of the liberal democratic tradition.

This is seen as having failed to provide a stable and sustainable governance model.

Adherents of the movement argue that democracy is inherently flawed because it places power in the hands of the ignorant masses, who are easily swayed by populist demagogues.

They argue that democracy leads to a “tyranny of the majority,” in which the interests of the minority are ignored in favor of the majority.

According to its core ethos, the liberal democratic tradition is characterized by a naive faith in progress, individualism, and equality.

These beliefs have resulted in social decay, cultural decline, and the erosion of Western civilization.

Instead, adherents of the Dark Enlightenment advocate for a system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, who are best equipped to make decisions for the good of society as a whole.

They also believe that this decay is the result of a number of factors. These factors include the breakdown of traditional values, the rise of secularism, the decline of religion, and the corruption of the political system.

They argue that this system would be more efficient and effective than democracy, as decisions would be made by those with the most knowledge and expertise.

To counteract these trends, Dark Enlightenment adherents advocate for a return to traditional forms of governance, cultural values, and social organization.

This includes a rejection of modern liberal democracy’s egalitarianism, which is considered unrealistic and undesirable.

Instead, the Dark Enlightenment promotes a hierarchy based on natural differences in ability and intelligence.

This hierarchy should guide decision-making in all areas of life, from politics to culture to personal relationships.

They argue that society is naturally hierarchical and that attempts to create a society based on equality are doomed to fail.

They believe that hierarchy is necessary for social order and stability, and that attempts to eliminate it will only lead to chaos and disorder.

It also emphasizes the importance of cultural and ethnic identities, which are seen as essential for maintaining social cohesion and a sense of purpose. This means that the movement is often associated with nationalism and ethnic chauvinism.

Some of its adherents have been accused of racism and xenophobia. However, many Dark Enlightenment thinkers reject these labels.

They argue that their ideas are based on a realistic assessment of the importance of cultural and ethnic identity in maintaining social order and stability.

Another key figure in the Dark Enlightenment is Nick Land, a former philosophy professor at the University of Warwick.
He began his career as a left-wing thinker and was associated with the “cybernetic culture research unit” at the University of Warwick, which explored the intersection of technology and culture.

Land has argued that democracy is a failed experiment that has led to the decay of Western civilization. It has also led to the rise of a parasitic class of elites who manipulate the masses for their own benefit.

He has said;

“The basic theme has been mind control, or thought-suppression, as demonstrated by the Media-Academic complex that dominates contemporary Western societies, and which Mencius Moldbug names the Cathedral.

When things are squashed they rarely disappear. Instead, they are displaced, fleeing into sheltering shadows, and sometimes turning into monsters.

Today, as the suppressive orthodoxy of the Cathedral comes unstrung, in various ways, and numerous senses, a time of monsters is approaching.”

Democracy is what prevents the realization of freedom, writes Land, suggesting that democracy is merely an Enlightenment myth:

“In European classical antiquity, democracy was recognized as a familiar phase of cyclical political development, fundamentally decadent in nature, and preliminary to a slide into tyranny,” Land says.

“Today this classical understanding is thoroughly lost, and replaced by a global democratic ideology, entirely lacking in critical self-reflection.

This ideology is asserted not as a credible social-scientific thesis, or even as a spontaneous popular aspiration, but rather as a religious creed, of a specific, historically identifiable kind,” Land had written.

His work is characterized by a rejection of traditional morality and a fascination with technology and artificial intelligence. Land believes that technological progress and social change should be accelerated rather than slowed down.

He argues that the only way to escape modern society’s constraints is to embrace the chaos of technological innovation and abandon the traditional values of liberalism and democracy.

Land says that humanity is rapidly approaching a point of technological singularity, at which point the distinction between humans and machines will become blurred.

In this new world, traditional morality will be replaced by a new form of ethics, based on the optimization of intelligence and the pursuit of power.

In addition to Moldbug and Land, there are a number of other thinkers associated with the Dark Enlightenment.

These include the man dubbed the world’s most dangerous philosopher, Alexandr Dugin, economist Tyler Cowen, the philosopher Peter Thiel, and the journalist John Derbyshire.

Dugin’s version of the Dark Enlightenment is heavily influenced by the ideas of Heidegger and the French thinker Julius Evola. He sees modernity as a crisis of meaning and identity, and argues that the only way to overcome this crisis is to return to Traditionalism.

He has argued that the Enlightenment project has been a failure. We need a new paradigm that is based on a rejection of individualism and an embrace of collective identity.

Despite the controversy surrounding his ideas, Dugin has become a prominent figure in Russian intellectual circles and has been influential in shaping political discourse in not only Russia, but also in the U.S. and around the globe. His philosophies have also gained traction among far-right and alt-right groups who see him as a kindred spirit in their quest to upend the liberal democratic order.

Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and Palantir, and the first outside investor in Facebook, has been speaking about the Dark Enlightenment for years and on recent college tours discussing apocalyptic themes such as the Antichrist and the Apocalypse

Thiel’s views on the Dark Enlightenment and his association with its proponents have sparked controversy and criticism.

Some have accused him of promoting authoritarianism and fascism, while others have praised him for his willingness to challenge mainstream political and social norms.

In a 2009 essay for the Cato Institute, Thiel criticized democracy and argued that it had failed to deliver meaningful progress. He also expressed skepticism about the ability of individuals to make rational decisions and suggested that authoritarianism might be a better alternative.

In a 2013 interview with the National Review, Thiel expressed his admiration for Moldbug’s ideas and described him as “the most interesting thinker” in the tech industry. He has also been critical of Silicon Valley culture and has argued that it is too focused on individualism and not enough on the common good.

He suggested that the tech industry needs to be more willing to work with the government and embrace a more collaborative approach to solving problems.

However, the movement is characterized more by a shared set of concerns than by a unified intellectual program, and there is a great deal of debate and disagreement among its adherents.

Critics of the Dark Enlightenment argue that its ideas are fundamentally reactionary and represent a retreat from the advances of modernity.

They point out that the movement’s emphasis on hierarchy, tradition, and ethnic identity is reminiscent of the ideologies that gave rise to the most brutal atrocities in the past.

Thumos: The Ancient Greek Concept of the Human Spirit or Ego

Thumos: The Ancient Greek Concept of the Human Spirit or Ego

“For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.” – Plato

The Ancient Greeks divided the soul of a person into three different parts – the mind (nous), the spirit (thumos), and needs or desires (epithumia).

Humans could be considered the charitor in the middle.

These parts would have different biological and mental operating functions that could either work with one another to help a person live a good and healthy life or they could work against each other to cause a person to have a bad and unhealthy life.

As if each part had a mind of its own.

In order to make rational and good decisions, each of the three parts must work with one another in a balanced manner.

In Plato’s Republic, speaking through Socrates, he divides the soul into three sections: the rational (nous), spirited (thumos), and desiring (epithumia or appetites).

Plato further elaborates on his own tripartite theory of the soul as the following:

Nous – is related to the “mind or intellect and “reason”, which involves thoughts, reflections, and questioning and should be the controlling part of the soul that subjugates the appetites with the help of our thumos.

Thumos (Thymos) – is related to our spirit and the modern concept of the ego, emotions, and passions of which we feel sadness, anger, fear, courage, glory, love, etc. (the Republic IV, 439e);

Epithumia – is our desires or appetites, which is normally ascribed to our lower natures or bodily desires such as food, drink, sex, money, power, etc.

For Plato, when these three parts of the soul are balanced and work in combination with one another, this makes us better suited in our destined vocation, and is also the secret process for developing our innate ideas.

It is interesting how Plato’s description of the so-called “spirited element” ( to thumoeides or thumos) helps or works against the intellect (nous), but also in either subjugating or being subject to our appetites.

This is why Plato once said, “For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.”

And his student Aristotle followed with, “What lies in our power to do, lies in our power not to do.”

Plato believed that the thumos (spirit) was the source for desires, emotions, and sensitivities. And also various attributes such as bravery, determination, and nobility that also needed to be tempered by a need for civility, order, and justice.

Within the ideal city state, every citizen would possess a healthy thumos (spirit) within their souls.

This thumos (spirit) would allow citizens to uphold their honor and courageously assert their opinion within civic life. A citizen also knows how to maintain composure or restrict the thumos (spirit) if it were to passionate, violent or when it were misdirected.

When discussing his ideal state within the pages of The Republic, Plato, through the voice of Socrates, explains that the ideal guard or soldier would be possessed with a spirited sense of thumos and a desire to combat injustice.

Plato mentions thumos when commenting on a dog that is both loyal to his master, and dangerous to any evil-doer he may encounter.

“And is he likely to be brave who has no spirit, whether horse or dog or any other animal? Have you never observed how invincible and unconquerable is a spirit and how the presence of it makes the soul of any creature to be absolutely fearless and indomitable?”- Plato (Republic Book II)

In the dialog Phaedrus, Plato compares the human soul to a chariot that is being pulled by one white horse and one black horse, with a skilled charioteer at the reigns.

“First the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome.”-Plato (Phaedrus)

The black horse is said to represent men’s passions and appetites (epithumia).

The white horse is said to represent what in Greek is called thumos, which again, means the spirit or ego. And the charioteer is what Plato calls the noble breed or soul using the power of reason, which holds the reigns of both horses steadily through reason, while not allowing either to run wild.

This is a powerful image by Plato to describe how to balance these different parts (minds) of the soul in order to lead a balanced and healthy life.

One horse represents our day to day needs and desires or what could be called our animal instincts, and the other represents our divine instinct to pursue social pride or what we call nobility.

In Homer’s works, thumos is used to describe the internal psychological process of thought, emotion, volition, and motivation. It was the emotional state of man, to which his thinking and feeling belonged.

It is what motivates us to accomplish or will or what can be called our God given destinies.

When a Homer writes about a hero who is under duress, he will project his thumos to converse with or get angry with it as if he has two minds or personalities to contend with within himself.

Homer uses thumos to describe the way in which a hero thinks and what drives his passions and motivations.

A “thomeward” man has an inner strength that may be called upon when faced with certain death, but it also remains separate from him and drives its own course regardless of what may be going on externally to the person.

Therefore, we can say that the thumos is the most crucial component for any hero or nobility.

Homer represents Achilles as the only hero who speaks and questions his soul as  “his great-hearted spirit” when he is unsure of how to proceed in battle. He uses thumos to show how Achilles is able to use logic and reason as he thinks out loud to himself, and arrives at important decisions.

The power or energy of the thumos could help a hero control his body and also be brave because it was a power or energy that was bigger than himself. It was something the hero initiated and tapped into, but it was also an agency that was separate from him.

The thumos not only can help a hero to be brave and stand their ground, but also acts as a metaphysical bond that ties him together with other heroes i.e., nobility who have similar thumos or spirits.

Thus creating invisible chains (Noosphere) that connect people to one another to assist not only in combat, but also in helping protect all that is good in society.

Cowards or weak people who do not have a strong thumos do not have the ability or God given right to tap into this energy or power.

As if by default, they are cut off from the source or God.

The Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, Democritus used “euthymia” (i.e. “good thumos”) to refer to when our soul is calm and steadfast. Not being disturbed by fear, superstition, or passions.

Meaning that a person can have a bad thumos or a good one.

For Democritus, having euthymia was one of the main goals of human life.

Diogenes Laërtius had wrote about Democritus’ view as follows:

“The chief good he asserts to be cheerfulness (euthymia); which, however, he does not consider the same as pleasure; as some people, who have misunderstood him, have fancied that he meant; but he understands by cheerfulness, a condition according to which the soul lives calmly and steadily, being disturbed by no fear, or superstition, or other passion.”

In Seneca’s essay on tranquility, he defines euthymia as “believing in yourself and trusting that you are on the right path, and not being in doubt by following the myriad footpaths of those wandering in every direction.”


Psychological Ideas in Antiquity. In: Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1973-74 Long, A. A.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Douglass Cairns)

Homer (2003). The Iliad (Wordsworth Classics) (New ed.)

The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living: Featuring new translations of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius

Plato and Socrates: Reading will produce people who are not wise, but only appear wise

Plato and Socrates: Reading will produce people who are not wise, but only appear wise

In Phaedrus (370 BCE), Plato details a discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus about the Egyptian myth of Thoth (Theuth), the god of the underworld who is credited with “number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, as well as the games of draughts and dice, and above all else, writing” (Phaedrus, 274d).

Now the king of all Egypt at that time was Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Thoth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians.

Thamus, the King of the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. He had visited Thoth pleading with him to disseminate the various learning arts around Egypt. As Thoth made his presentations, Thamus would either praise or offer his criticisms.

When it came to the art of writing, Thoth told the King:

“O King, here is something that, once learned, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered an elixir for memory and for wisdom.” (Phaedrus, 274e)

Thoth claims that writing will allow humans to record and then recall their thoughts and thus help with their memories, but Thamus disagrees. The King believes Thoth’s love of writing had kept him from acknowledging the truth that writing would increase forgetfulness rather than improve memory.

Instead of understanding and experiencing things to create experiential knowledge, people would instead rely on reading and writing to learn a subject. In doing so, students would learn a great many subjects without properly thinking about them.

Hence, they may have the “appearance of wisdom” but “for the most part they will know nothing” (Phaedrus, 275a-b).

Thamus said;

“Most ingenious Thoth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another;  and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.

“For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.

You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.”

Socrates emphasizes this point by stating that writing alone has no understanding of itself and “continues to signify just the same thing forever” (Phaedrus, 275d-e). He instead favored discourse and conversation in the form of discourse and dialect.

What Socrates means by this is that a true philosopher’s knowledge and ideas are not to be set in stone as rigid dogmas that cannot be modified or changed with the introduction of new or contradicting information.

They must always be open to viewing issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion based on truth rather than selfish motives or egotistical aims.

For Socrates, true knowledge was like the seed of a flower that continues to grow allowing for more information to be added or discarded.

By continuing a dialect and discourse with the original planters, i.e., adding new knowledge about a subject or philosophy, it becomes more beautiful and perfect and thus continues to grow becoming immortal.

Socrates had said:

“The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human being can be.” (277a)

When we study the dialectical method, we find that this can be applied to the discourse a philosopher or researcher must partake in to find truth.

This can happen in different eras or thousands of years apart between the originator of the idea or philosophy and two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to hash out the difference of opinions or facts using a scientific method of logic and reason to establish the ultimate truth.

A thinking layer of knowledge and information that is introduced into human civilization as an idea that becomes our programming code based upon how many people accept, propagate, dialect, discourse, and expand upon the idea to the point it forms our reality.

This explanation of how ideas and knowledge become immortal is how I contend that the Noosphere or World Soul is formed.

This debate that Plato puts forth between Thoth and the King of Egypt is fascinating because if we fast forward to our modern era, a 1986 study had shown that the most successful readers must first decode what they read to truly comprehend the subject.

It is called the theory of the Simple View of Reading, which defines the skills that contribute to an individual’s reading comprehension as the product of their decoding skill and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer,1986).

Meaning, that in order to learn and know a certain subject, you cannot just tread something, you must learn to recognize and interpret information to discover the underlying meaning and to explain it in a comprehensible form.

Meaning that reading and memorizing will not equate to true understanding and wisdom.

A person must think deeply about what they read in order to understand.

Almost two decades later, a new improved theory was put forth that had shown that there are many more skills a person must have to truly decode information and to be called an accurate researcher and or expert on any given subject.

In 2001, Dr. Hollis Scarborough, a psychologist, advanced this theory further by showing that true understanding, skill, and wisdom are attained through several different skill sets that must be used for the decoding and comprehension of knowledge and word recognition.

She used a “reading rope” model depicting a rope with its different strands to demonstrate the skills a reader needs to come to a true understanding or wisdom on a subject.

The strands of the rope show the different elements of language necessary for true comprehension (the top five strands), which bind to the three essential skills (the bottom three strands) of word recognition to form a strong rope.

If one strand is weak or if the strands are not interwoven tightly in increasingly strategic and automatic ways, then the reader cannot truly become wise.

The lower strands include:

Phonological awareness
Alphabetic principle
Letter-sound correspondences
Sight recognition

The upper strands include:

Background knowledge
Language structures
Verbal reasoning
Literacy knowledge

Therefore, attaining knowledge and becoming wise does not just involve reading about a subject, it also entails intensive thought processes from different points of view and through our own experiences, and our own capacities.

It is the quality of our thoughts in combination of who you are, what we read, and converting this knowledge (information, facts, associations etc. ) to wisdom (outcomes, philosophies etc.) is how someone truly becomes wise.

But we must remain humble in our ways and cannot become a know it all or the guru who ignorantly thinks he as all the answers. As Socrates once said:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

A true philosopher must also always be open to discourse and dialect with other people and researchers who many will have different ideas and opinions if we truly want to arrive at truth.

Otherwise, we are living on the fumes from the bowels of the dogmatic lies written and read by mortal automatons hell bent on storming heaven to invert and control reality for their selfish gain.



Gough, Philip B., and William E. Tunmer. “Decoding, Readability, and Reading Disability.” Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), Jan/Feb 1986, pp. 6–10.

Scarborough, Hollis S. “Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)Abilities: Evidence, Theory, and Practice.” Handbook of Early Literacy Research, edited by Susan B. Neuman and David K. Dickinson, Guilford Press, 2001, pp. 97–110.

Click to access EJ1191985.pdf

Scarborough’s Reading Rope: A Groundbreaking Infographic

Philip K. Dick’s Androids: Physiologically human but an imitation, a copy of an original

Philip K. Dick’s Androids: Physiologically human but an imitation, a copy of an original

A common theme you will find in Philip K. Dick’s writings is the concept of people who do not act human due to their behaviors and how they treat other people.

He claimed that a person who lacks the ethics, empathy, and sincerity that are seen as defining humanity can be considered an android, which he says is “a metaphor for people who are physiologically human but psychologically behaving in a non-human way.”

“The android, by definition, is not human,” Dick wrote. “He is an imitation, a copy of an original. And he must be treated as such.”

The difference between people and androids doesn’t lie in their biological characteristics, but rather in their actions and behaviors. Any person who is compassionate toward others can be called a person; those who lack empathy aren’t human but something else altogether.

Dick says this is especially true if that person has been programmed by their parents or society to live in such a way that they lack empathy towards others.

He called these people manufactured human beings who were much like androids. They can be considered to be “manlike” because they are often made in their image and resemble human beings.

“Androids,” Dick wrote, “are manufactured beings almost identical to real human beings.

He said the android was “a thing somehow generated to deceive us in a cruel way, to cause us to think it to be one of ourselves.”

Dick was also infamous for his claims that many people’s lives were controlled by external forces. That we live in a type of computer simulation.

A theme he used to describe this world was “The Black Iron Prison” of the “Empire (Roman) that never ended.”

In many of his books, androids can have biological and mechanical parts to make them indistinguishable from humans. They can be genetically modified clones of humans (as in Clans of the Alphane Moon).

“An android'” Dick said, “doesn´t care what happens to another android. That´s some of the indications we are looking for.” (Dick 2007, 88).

When a person does not care about how other people feel and just does whatever they want, they are said to lack empathy and sympathy. They can be even diagnosed as sociopathic and even psychopathic if their behavior gets worse.

According to the Oxford Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learner´s Dictionary, empathy derived from the Greek term “empatheia” and means “the ability to understand another person´s feelings, experience, etc.”

People who lack empathy have the inability to put oneself in the position of someone else or simply do not care. This is the opposite of the Christian ethos of treating others how you want to be treated or the Freemasonic concept of Brotherly Love.

Dick was interested in artificial intelligence from an early age: he studied philosophy at Berkeley and wrote his first novel — Solar Lottery — while still in his 20s.

The book features a robot who looks like Elvis Presley and is able to sing like him too — which makes it clear that Dick knew about AI long before computers were powerful enough to create anything like it (or even before anyone had thought of making one).

Among the examples of androids in the modern world, Dick sees the unethical and immoral behavior of the German Nazi’s and the police state in which he predicts a future where we would all live in a surveillance society.

Dick had researched the behavior of the Nazis and their treacherous murder campaigns of millions of people. He read how often many of these Germans who became Nazi’s were highly intelligent but emotionally “so defective that the word human could not properly be applied” to them.

This led Dick to a study of “the problem of differentiating the authentic human being from the reflex machine I call an android.”

Dick’s 1956 story “The Android and the Human” is a classic that tells the story of an android that is programed to behave like a human being, but cannot feel empathy or compassion for other humans. This behavior leads to the scientists who created the androids to question what makes us human.

In a lecture on “The Android and the Human” in 1972, Dick discussed the difference between an android and a human. He said;

“I strongly suspect that we will discover in the 21st century that what makes us human is not our physical bodies or our biological processes but rather our minds — our minds in whatever shapes they take — and if we can find ways to communicate with other intelligences we may find that they are not all physical at all.”

Dick said, “…an android means, as I said, to allow oneself to become a means, or to be pounded down, manipulated, made into a means without one’s consent—the results are the same. But you cannot turn a human into an android if that human is going to break laws every chance he gets.”

Androidization requires obedience.

And, most of all, predictability. It is precisely when a given person’s response to any given situation can be predicted with scientific accuracy that the gates are open for the wholesale production of the android life form,” he says.

Dick says, “Some meaningful comparison exists between human and mechanical behavior as the external world becomes more animate, we may find that we—the so-called humans— are becoming.. .inanimate in the sense that we are led, directed by built-in tropisms, rather than leading. So we and our elaborately evolving computers may meet each other half way.”

In his novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, he explores what it means to be human through the eyes of Rick Deckard (the main character) who hunts down rogue androids that are trying to blend into society without being detected.

In his novel “A Scanner Darkly”, he takes this idea further by exploring how people can become addicted to drugs and how they lose their humanity as they continue to use them over time.


The term android was used before Dick to describe a robot that looks like a human being.

The word was first coined by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his book “A System of Logic” (1843). He said:

“Let us conceive a machine as nearly resembling a human being as possible in outward shape and motion, but constructed of metal and possessed of no other faculties than those which would enable it to walk, handle materials and perform particular operations.”

Later it was used by playwriter, Karel Capek (1890-1938) who is credited with inventing the word “robot” in his play “R.U.R.” (1920).

The Ancient Greeks gave us the first concept of an android or human like creature they called Beast (thēríon) and ‘αὐτῷ (autō),’ meaning “He, she, it, they, them” and use of the “third person, and of the other persons.”

So when we read Beast, we understand that this represents a person, and I contend it is from the Greek word ‘αὐτῷ (autō), where we get the word automatic and the adjective to describe a person who acts like a robot as an “automaton.”

The word “automaton” is the Latinization of the Greek αὐτόματον, automaton, meaning “acting of one’s own will”. The Hellenistic world’s automata were intended as tools, toys, religious spectacles, or prototypes for demonstrating basic scientific principles.

A person who is an automaton acts like a Beast because they would be similar to the meaning, which is “a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.” 

These philosophical teachings of the Greeks became part of our Bibles. For example, in the New Testament, the Greek Beast (thēríon) and ‘αὐτῷ (autō) is derived from the Hebrew word behamah, which means “human-animal” or, more appropriately, a “stupid or ignorant person”.


These people who he called androids would act fake and appear to be good humans. But they were wearing what he called a “Devil’s mask.”

Dick wrote;

“My theme for years in my writing has been, “The devil has a metal face.” Perhaps this should be amended now.

What I glimpsed and then wrote about was in fact not a face; it was a mask over a face. And the true face is the reverse of the mask.

Of course it would be. You do not place fierce cold metal over fierce cold metal. You place it over soft flesh, as the harmless moth adorns itself artfully to terrorize others with ocelli.

This is a defensive measure, and if it works, the predator returns to his lair grumbling, “I saw the most frightening creature in the sky — wild grimaces and flappings, stingers and poisons.”

His kin are impressed. The magic works.

I had supposed that only bad people wore frightening masks, but you can see now that I fell for the magic of the mask, its dreadful frightening magic, its illusion. I brought the deception and fled.

I wish know to apologize for preaching that deception to you as something genuine: I’ve had you all sitting around the campfire with our eyes wide with alarm as I tell tales of the hideous monsters I encountered; my voyage of discovery ended in terrifying visions which I dutifully carried home with me as I fled back to safety.

Safety from what? From something which, when the need was gone for concealment, smiled and revealed its harmlessness.

Now I do not intend to abandon my dichotomy between what I call “human” and what I call “android,” the latter being a cruel and cheap mockery of the former for base ends. But I had been going on surface appearances; to distinguish the categories more cunning is required.

For if a gentle, harmless life conceals itself behind a frightening war-mask, then it is likely that behind gentle and loving masks there can conceal itself a vicious slayer of men’s souls.

In neither case can we go on surface appearance; we must penetrate to the heart of each, to the heart of the subject.

Probably everything in the universe serves a good end — I mean, it serves the universe’s goals.

But intrinsic portions or subsystems can be takers of life. We must deal with them as such, without reference to their role in the total structure.


In the era Philip K. Dick had lived, there was widespread panic in the U.S. about artificial intelligence and computers taking over our lives and the world.

His books and stories that also became movies like Total Recall seemed to fuel fear rather than abate it.

Dick often described himself as being paranoid.

The Sepher Yezirah, a Cabbalist text, “The Book of Creation,” which is almost 2,000 years old, tells us:

“God has also set the one over agaist the other; the good against the evil, and the evil against the good; the good proceeds from the good, and the evil from the evil; the good purifies the bad, and the bad the good; the good is preserved for the good, and the evil for the bad ones.”

Underlying the two game-players there is God, who is neither and both.

The effect of the game is that both players become purified. Thus, the ancient Hebrew monotheism, so superior to our own view.

We are creatures in a game with our affinities and aversions predetermined for us — not by blind chance but by patient, foresighted engramming systems which we dimly see.

Were we to see them clearly, we would abolish the game. Evidently that would not serve anyone’s interests.

We must trust these tropisms, and anyhow we have no choice — not until the tropisms lift. And under certain circumstances they can and do.

And at that point, much is clear which previously was occluded from us, intentionally.”

Among the examples of androids in the modern world, Dick sees the unethical and immoral behavior of the German Nazi’s and the police state in which he predicts a future where we would all live in a surveillance society.

A future that today many of us are living in as a fact.

Pin It on Pinterest