Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Duncan Trussell tells Theo Von why the horrifying stuff the algorithm feeds you is not an accident, and explains what it does to your brain. It starts with the phone in your hand. TRUSSELL: "All of us are staring into these hypno-rectangles. The algorithm, at least my algorithm, it's... show more
186,792 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![Former hedge fund manager David Rogers Webb describes the goal of "The Great Taking" "it's much darker than [they] just want to control people... It is about destroying populations... It's that they intend that you will not exist" "It's not that they need your stuff. They can create unlimited amounts of money" "It's not that they need your stuff or your money. It's that they do not want you to have have your stuff and your money" "It is about subjugation of populations" "It's even worse than being about control. Because they have control now. They have total control now" "So what is happening now is beyond having total control" "It is about destroying populations" "So it's much darker than that [they] just want to control people" "First people think it's that they want to make money. No, it's much worse than that. [Then they think] it's that they want control—no, it's much worse than that. It's that they intend that you will not exist" This clip of Webb (David Rogers Webb), who's also the author of a book dubbed The Great Taking, is taken from a FrihetsNytt interview posted to Rumble in May 2026.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2071703454972813396/amplify_video_thumb/2071700282929774592/img/wLP-84VfFy2nckHL.jpg)
![I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2049167429041824109/ext_tw_video_thumb/2049167371538251780/pu/img/25DXjHkj6hG_xBzD.jpg)
![Alex Jones: "Overall, I've been supportive of Trump because he was disruptive of the globalists... but more and more, it looks like he's pretty much starting to join them... [and now] we're being slept walked into full war with Iran. I think it's bad." This clip of Jones (Alex Jones) is taken from a discussion with Duncan Trussell (Duncan Trussell) posted to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour YouTube channel on March 5, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Jones: "The first rule of intelligence is whatever you first are told isn't true..." Trussell: "So what do you think is going on over there? What's your analysis of this?" Jones: "Well, you have to always go to original war doctrine, the Iranian war doctrine, Israel's war doctrine, the US War doctrine, China's war doctrine, Russia's war doctrine, and the other parties involved, like North Korea. And then out of that war doctrine, and my sources already previously had, we knew what the plan was decapitate... First they need to decapitate the Iranians, Iranian leadership, then destroy their air defenses, then destroy their main military and their navy. So that's pretty much happening. "But Trump said nine months ago in June, this is about taking out their nuclear sites. That wasn't true. That was just getting us used to this. And so now it is about basically sleepwalking us into a full war. "Now today, Trump said he may support boots on the ground. And so overall, I've been supportive of Trump because he was disruptive of the globalists, they didn't want him at first. "But more and more, it looks like he's pretty much starting to join them. And so just like NATO and the EU slept walked us into war with Russia, we're being slept walked into full war with Iran. I think it's bad." Trussell: "What happens to American presidents? What the fuck is it that happens that inevitably, no matter what they say, inevitably they just turn into the same person. They just turn into somebody who's gonna drop bombs somewhere in the Middle East?" Jones: "They had the very best CIA briefers, the very best psychologists. They keep them up, they give them threats. They put this responsibility on them that there's imminent doom, and then they just know how to psychologically manipulate them."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2029789878423265771/amplify_video_thumb/2029788293693591553/img/THkIacT2HbgZzLPc.jpg)
![.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1684670109636300800/ext_tw_video_thumb/1684659748820426752/pu/img/FjRpVoLx9OkSek6l.jpg)
![The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2060155537791303822/amplify_video_thumb/2060149164164669440/img/gbwudVOTDKQpFTbG.jpg)