Sssso something less than less, the service less stevens, the serves less umber
saying the sas the last new less stas Spain, the ss yes side Spain,
the slider staying rations h s stands the stand the stan. Some things
may us some spell stand All right, what's up? Welcome to the mystery
religion known as dialectical materialism. And you might think, how could this man
be so insane, so foolish? Materialism is not religious. It's purely scientific,
purely scientific. Indeed, that is what Marxism claimed to be, as
it progressed from the earlier revolutionary movements of the time of the French Revolution,
and even before that, from the figures of Saint Simon, Saint Just and
Buena Rodi and Bishop. So we'll be going into some history here, getting
going back to some of the revolutionary figures that precede marks, even back to
the the Renaissance period, the magic of the Renaissance period and some of the
hermeticists that precede and influence Marx. And you say, wait, about how
could her medicis influence Karl Marx because Marx was an atheist. It's just not
possible, right, But you see the Hermeticis influence one of the most important
influences on marx and that's Hegel. So we're gonna be talking about some of
Hegel's process philosophy, the mystical religion of process, the worship of dialectical process
itself, and the worship of dialectical process or the attributing to dialectical process of
theological and religious intentionality attributes is not new to Hegel or the Hermeticis of that
period. Prior to Hegel, and the secret societies that people in the Prussian
aristocracy were a member of, we're members of. This also spills over into
ancient philosophy, where the original ideas of Marxism find their roots, particularly in
the famous figures of the Presocratics and Plato. Now I've covered the predecessors to
Marxism and Socialism and Platonism many many times, so we're not going to focus
on Plato. We're going to focus on Presocratic ideology, particularly the figure of
Heraclitus. And the reason that we want to talk about Harclidis is that he
has a specific presupposition about flux. All reality is essentially flux for Heraclitus.
And if you don't know, I did teach a course going through the history
of Western philosophy, and we began with the Presocratics, and that's a thirty
plus our course which you can purchase right there if you're interested from Richard Groves
Autonomy AGORAM Marketplace. Together with the Q and as and all of that,
it's probably it comes to close to forty hours of information. But we begin
the talk with how Western philosophy is really rooted in the notion of dialectics,
and it goes back older. It's prior to what we call Western philosophy,
usually beginning with the Greeks. Because you can go back to ancient aryan Hindu
philosophy, you can go back to ancient Babylonian philosophy, you can go back
to ancient Egyptian philosophy. They had very similar approaches. Usually the assumptions of
total monism or total dualism. Those that's most world religions and ancient religions,
especially for Eastern religions, they typically fall over into either being monistic or dualistic.
And that's true for the religious Presocratic philosophers. While the Presocratics could you
could say that they were a kind of proto atheist, they still attributed magical
powers to matter. Matter does things that God could do. Matter comes to
be out of nothing, or has always eternally existed, and so it has
a kind of eternality, and the universe is eternal right, eternal return.
These ideas are present, for example, in Plato, Plato I would argue
as a mystical initiatory theological philosophy, but predecessors to Plato amongst the Presocratics,
who were usually consumed with questions of grand narrative. So with the Presocratics Parmenides,
right with Heraclidas, anaximand or all these different characters, they were concerned
with figuring out what is the overriding ultimate force, power or organizing principle that
explains all reality. And so, for example, in Heraclidas, the idea
is that all reality fundamentally just is flux. It is change. The only
permanence is change. That would be a very Heracletian dictum. So well,
I'm gonna look at this forerunner because of course, when we get to people
like hegel who will influence Marx, because Marx early Marx joins the young Hegelians,
We're going to see that dialectical process philosophy is the root, the presupposition,
the starting point of the entire system, and Marxism, muchlike Hegelianism,
is what we call a system building project. It's not concerned with metaphysics,
even though it uses metaphysical claims. Metaphysical argumentation presupposes metaphysics all over the place.
It contradicts itself by dewriting and rejecting metaphysics as a pre Enlightenment fiction slash
fantasy. But just because we call something fiction or fantasy doesn't make it so.
And so when we attribute universal claims to all reality, like that all
reality is matter if we're empiricists, and of course pretty much all of the
Marxists are empiricists, you don't have access to that. You can't even know
that it's an unjustified claim. And so they would do well to read a
little bit of hum Now Lennon did read human. We're going to look at
some of Lennon's comments on Hume and Foyerbach when Lennon attempts to address this question.
Because Lennon doesn't believe in apparently or so, he claims total relativism.
He believes that there is objective truth objective truth is objective reality, which is
simply matter, which is simply the external material world is for linen truth itself.
That's the highest epistemic principle. Now that's a metaphysical claim at the same
time as we're dispensing with metaphysics. So let's look at Heraclitis first. We're
gonna rewind all the way back to five hundred BC, and we're gonna notice
the presuppositions of this worldview and of this system in it. It doesn't really
matter ultimately which of the various Marxist traditions and schools and schisms we look at,
because all of the Marxist schools and schisms are going to be predicated on
dialectical materialism. And it doesn't matter if they want to believe in a brute
reductionist crude materialism or if they want to have some kind of so called belief
in immaterial realities. The question is that's just rescuing the system without a justification
for how there are immaterial realities. So, as we'll see, it doesn't
matter what you claim your position is. The question is why should we believe
that? And just like Thomas and just like so many people in weird,
ridiculous systems. They think that stating what their system is constitutes the argument,
we don't want to know what your system is. We know what your system
is, but we want to know why we're supposed to believe that's the case.
Why ought we believe that? What are the good reasons? Not any
reasons, the good reasons to believe that we should not trust metaphysics as we
make metaphysical claims about all reality being matter or all reality being matter in some
form of ideas. If all reality is matter, where do ideas come from?
What our ideas? What is the faculty that you're calling the mind or
the reasoning faculty? If everything is reducible to pure flux, all reductionist systems,
even if they want to have a place for ideas or a form of
idealism, become irrational and incoherent because they're contradicting themselves. But as we're going
to see, in Marxism, it's okay to contradict. In fact, the
root of the system is the acceptance of contradictions, because contradictions are the furtherance
of Marxism. That's called praxis. Marxism is not a system where you sit
around and theorize. You must take action. Praxis is the essence of Marxism
because Marxism is predicated on rejecting theory or pure theory. Philosophy for the Marxists
is theorizing, sitting around, speculating true system action. True praxis is rejecting
philosophy and acting, acting in the world to do what, to contradict,
to struggle, to oppose, to cause struggle, because struggle is the mystical
process by which the dialectic is furthered, so that the process itself, which
is the process, is the religion. It is the god figure dialectical oppositions,
and that's why they love, for example, Darwinism. Darwinism is survival
of the fittest. It is the biological natural imperative to engage in conflict for
the purpose of evolution in the species, to produce the fitter models, so
to speak. That is why Marks, for example, as he got more
mature, as he developed and wrote dos Capital, he dedicated it to Darwin
because he saw, or he believed his system to be the perfect pure science
of praxeology of human action in the world of human sociology, which is not
even developed yet but will eventually develop out of socialism. Socialist Marxist will develop
the discipline eventually of sociology via actually the Rockefeller funded University of Chicago, but
it actually has its predecessors and people like Saint Simon as we'll see, and
agus Compte, the socialists of France prior to and at the time of Marx
in the eighteen hundreds. But let's understand this mystical dialectical material process. And
why do I call it mystical. Well, when we look at Hagel,
we're gonna understand that it's mystical. But when we go to Marx, as
everyone probably know is hopefully Marx turns Hegel on his head, and Marx will
be influenced by not just Hegel, but also a couple other figures like Saint
Simon and like Feuerbach. So Marx so Saint Simon, Hegel and Feuerbach are
the three key influences on early young Marx when Marx is a member of the
young Hegelians. Later on Marks will incorporate other influences like Darwin. But when
we think about Hagel, we have to remember that Hagel has multiple influences as
well, that are not restricted to Plato or dialecticians of the ancient Greek world
like Heraclitis, but certain Renaissance Hermetic figures and cobbalists who will be a crucial
influence on the figure of Hegel. And I'll list some of those figures here
in a moment when we get to looking at a little bit of Hegel.
And this will be coming from the excellent academic text Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition
by doctor Alexander McGhee from Long Island University. This is a pretty well known
well, I guess in Hegelian studies. It's a well known book, but
not many people have actually read this book. But the book goes on to
demonstrate the various Rosicrucian secrets aside idea influences on the figure of Hegel when developing
his kind of alchemical philosophy. But let's go all the way back to Heraclitis.
Heraclitis flourished around five hundred BC, and he is the critic of his
predecessors and contemporaries for failing to see the unity of all experience. And so
we have an attempt at a monistic perspective. What is monism monism is the
idea is that all reality is one thing. It could be one thing in
difference, it could be matter. All reality is that one thing that is
matter, It could be ideas. All reality is that one thing that is
ultimately just an idea. And so Platonism, for example, is an idealist
philosophy that you could argue is ultimately monistic. You might also argue that perhaps
Platonism is dualistic. Zoroastrianism, right, that's a religion or various gnostic groups.
Those are just structures and narratives that are basically dualistic, and that all
reality is fundamentally two types of things, God versus matter, light versus dark,
etc. Those are dualistic approaches. But when we come to the character
of Heraclitus, he is a monistic philosopher. All reality is what what is
that one big thing? It is logos? But what for him is logos?
Well, in one sense he says opposites are necessary for life. They
are like a unified system of balanced exchanges. The world itself consists of lawlike
interchanges of elements. And so if you go back to Empedocles and the pre
Socratics, they will list out the four elements, and then perhaps ether as
the fifth element. And these elements are always kind of colliding and bumping and
causing and doing different things and producing different things. Right, men and women
come together, they produce a kid. Fire comes together with water and it
produces heat, It produces steam. Right, the water evaporates, and so
all of life is characterized. Did you notice that as oppositional necessity? Opposites
are necessary for life day, night, dark, light, white, black,
male, female, cold, hot, etc. But it is a
unified lawlike interchange of this perpetual flux. And what is the best symbol of
this for Heraclitis? Fire? Why fire? Because fire is hot, it
is always moving, it is ultimately constantly changing. And the mystico metaphysical religious
significance here is that all of reality, since it is supposedly just atoms and
molecules bumping around and moving, all reality is fundamentally ultimately pure flux. Again,
coming back to Heraclitis, Now keep in mind that the usage of fire
there is relevant because fire is going to be a perpetual symbol that marksist socialist
revolutionaries throughout the later centuries post Enlightenment will use as their chief symbol. In
fact, they will actually hearken back to not just Heraclitus, but even to
the ancient Zoroastrians. In the character of bishopped to point out that because the
Zoroastrians worshiped fire as this revolutionary principle, furthering the duality right, because there's
always a center change, what is it that symbolizes the constant flux, the
constant change again, fire, which is perpetually, always in motion and movement.
Thus, and we will look at this as one of our key source
texts for this discussion, the classic book by James Billington, Fire in the
Minds of Men, Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, not an accident that he
titled his book Fire in the Minds of Men, because the revolutionary philosophy all
the way back to these guys, is symbolized by fire. And when we
look to the predecessors to the French Revolution, the characters of Buonarotti and Adam
Bishop. Not talking about conspiracy theories about the actual history of Adam Bishop,
he will utilize Pythagorean, Zoroastrian and Heraklesten's symbology for his communistic philosophy. For
those that don't know, Adam Bishop was a communist prior to Karl Marx,
and for those that don't know, prior to Adam Bishopt, Pythagoras and Plato
were communists prior to Karl Marx. And it's not even disputed when you get
into the academic literature on this. I had undergrad and grad classes where we
covered the history of the French Revolution through many academic texts. So I know
this history very well. But keep in mind that James Billington is not a
conspiracy theorist. Billington was a believer in the revolutionary philosophy. In fact,
he was a He was the Librarian of Congress, and so this is a
historical political science history text by the Librarian of Congress. It is a famous
academic text. It is not a conspiracy text. And of course, being
at the Library of Congress, James Billington of course favors the American Girandin side
of the revolution over the Jacobins side. But nevertheless he still gives a lot
of credence and honor and obeisance to the revolutionary communist ethost of the Jacobins,
who were the radical communists fall VII shop in the French Revolution. In other
words, the Jacobins believed in no private property. Your wife is my wife.
We share all things in common. Literal communists, men and women are
completely equal. Whereas the Grandins were the more quote conservad revolutionaries who believed in
private property, who believed in distinctions between genders, et cetera. Doesn't mean
that they're not still revolutionary philosophers. They were right the merchant class, the
nobility in the French Revolution, the Lafayettes, these kinds of characters, they
were the Grondins. They believed in right wing revolution. So Ever since the
French Revolution, we have been stuck in a choice between two forms of revolutionary
philosophy. Do you want communism, socialism of the Jacobin sort and the Marxist
sort, or do you want revolutionary philosophy of the American Founding Fathers sort.
That's really all that's offered to you in the modern world since the French Revolution.
There's really no other options. And yes, I understand that Lasa fair
economics is just an older form of revolution merchant merchant class revolutionary philosophy of Adam
Smith, David Ricardo, John Locke, but's that also is an Anglo empiricist
revolutionary enlightenment philosophy. That's just the dialectical opposition to the socialism of that time.
And yes there were social again, there were socialisms all the way back
to the ancient world, again going back to figures like Pythagoras and Plato.
Plato's book is called the Republic, and in the Republic, the guardian class
in particular holds all things in common, and so you have a proto communism
in the ideal republic of Plato. Eventually, this gets a little bit modified
by later Plato in the Laws, where he erects a secret society that governs
the what he calls Magnesia, the new form of the republic in Magnesia,
it's governed by an intelligence operative secret society group called the Council of Night.
And so it doesn't really change a whole lot, except that you have a
de emphasizing of the philosopher king, and it's more so run by a council
of wise oligarchs or olympians, basically the way we're governing nowadays with a Kissinger
of Brazinski, you know, a coalition of oligarchs and counsels and steering committees.
Really modeled, I would say, you could argue probably on the basis
of Plato's later work, The Laws of Magnesia. But regardless, there's still
proto communism in Plato's Republic because the guardian class has all things in common,
including wives and children. So back to Harraklidas. For Harry Klidas noticed that
the logos here is not what we think of in orthodox Christianity or in John
One's sense of the logos. So notice how we have to be careful how
we define words, right, Logos doesn't mean the same thing in every philosopher
and across every system. That's called the word concept fallacy. And a lot
of Roman Catholics trade on this bait and switch argument where they will say,
look, all the philosophers are talking about logos, that's what John means in
John One, Well, there might be some overlap, but that doesn't mean
that they mean the same thing. For example, Heraclidas's logos is an all
pervading monistic force. It is the composite totality of all of reality. That
is the logos in flux, in movement, and in process. Okay,
we're not Pantheus. Jesus is not the world of flux. Jesus. The
logos is the second person of the Godhead. That is not what Heraclidus is
teaching. So there's not the same reference between Heraclidas's logos and logos and John
one Roman Catholics. Can you understand this natural theology? Can you understand this?
There are different reference there. Now, it is true that what Greek
philosophers were seeking for when they talked about the all perbading idea of logos ultimately
is grasping in the dark for the person of Christ. But it is not
grasping in the dark for generic monad theism. There is no generic theism.
There's only triad and the energies of God are only manifested in a triadic mode.
As is it loss or Mantaid's argues, I think it's monts Reid's.
The world is not to be identified in any particular substance, but with ongoing
process governed by quote law of change. Now, let's presup this right from
the outset, because this presubmisitional critique will apply to every process philosophy system out
there. Very easy to refute this. Notice the fundamental law, the unchanged,
supposedly non material principle. The starting point, the first principle of this
system is the law. Now, law cannot be reduced to matter here.
It must be an existing metaphysical truth principle that is immaterial and non variant to
be a law. Otherwise it's not a law. The law is that all
of reality is change, all of reality is subject to ongoing process number one,
a universal claim. So how do we know that herroclydis knows this?
What is the justification episdemically for saying all of reality is flux. Second,
if all reality is flux, then the proposition all reality is flux is no
longer true and must also be subject to flux. Very simple presubsitional critique of
the first principle of Heraclianism and all dialectical philosophy. Maybe accepting Hegel and a
few of the German idealists who might not believe that all realities flucks, they
will have probably some place for the absolute or the universal. Certainly, for
example, Plato wouldn't believe that all realities flux right, Plato would disagree with
this. In fact, Plato later is trying to Plato and Aerosol are trying
to resolve the questions of the presocratics, questions like the one in the many
questions like what is the fundamental nature of all that exists? Is it fire?
Is it water? Is it flux? Is it permanence? Promenities?
Zeno. All these guys trying to answer this question, Plato and Aerosota will
also trying to deal with a Presocratic question known as the question of identity or
change over time. Many of the Presocratics were preoccupied with this metaphysical question,
and Ariostota and Plato both attempt to give answers to that. Aristotle's causes,
his attempt his answer to the pre Socratic question of identity through change or identity
over time. That's the whole point, the whole origin of Aristotle's causes.
So her Clidis is the first questern philosopher to philosopher to go beyond physical theory
in search of metaphysical foundations and moral applications. So notice that the argument that
all reality is process is a metaphysical claim. And it doesn't matter whether you
think that all reality is ideas or all reality is matter. When you say
all reality is matter, that's a metaphysical claim. And ontology is a branch
of metaphysics. Against all the Marxists who had no clue what I was talking
about the other day. Literally no knowledge of philosophy at all, trying to
debate, no clue what these words mean, what a metaphysical rotological claim is.
And Herclodus lived in Ephesus, on the Ionian coast of Asia Meyer,
not far from Malitis, the birthplace of philosophy. We know nothing about his
life that he can be gleaned from his own statements. For all ancient biographies
of him consist of nothing more than inferences of imaginary and constructions based on what
he said. Plato thought he wrote after Parmenides, but perhaps it is more
likely, but he wrote before Parmenides. He is criticized by name by important
thinkers with him he disagrees, although he doesn't mention Parmenides. Parmenides argued,
contrary to Herclidis, all realities flux. Change is an illusion. Parmenides is
the opposite of Heraclidis. Heraclidus says, no, you are wrong. All
reality is flux, not permanents. So you have it backwards dialectical opposition.
You see later philosophers an attempt to solve this dialectical ideological conflict by a synthesis.
This will be part of the reason why later. Process philosophers like Hegel
argue that it's not just matter that's in motion, it's also ideas. And
ultimately, for Hegel, all reality, as ideas, ideals and their exchange
are producing a synthesis, which is a gradual upward movement and ascent of history
to become pure spirit. That's the Hegelian view, that's the Omega point,
that's the cunning of reason, and all the stuff that Hegel talked about.
Now again that's going to be very all. This will be very relevant for
Karl Marks. So we can't understand Marks until we understand these things first.
And it's not controversial. I studied under Marxists in college, trained under Frankfurt
School people. So my professor graduate and undergraduate advisor and philosophy trained under his
advisor was under Hob Moss. So I have delect direct descent from Frankfurt School.
I make that joke, but I'm not also not joking, but I
had Marxistolic succession through studying under people who've studied under people who studied under Horror
Moss. So that doesn't mean that my arguments are correct. I'm just saying
that that's my pedigree. That's my lineage. In terms of academic study,
I studied a lot of Marxism in college and in grad school. That does
not make me a Marxist expert. I do not care that much about Marxism
to become a Marxist expert. But I guarantee you, compared to of internet
Marxists, I know way more Marxism and have studied way more Marxist texts,
especially from Horkheimer, Adorno, Horror, Moss and these figures out of the
Critical School than any of these other gooverers. I also understand that the Frankfurt
School is not identical too early marx and it's not identical too Soviet Block Marxism.
I am well aware of all these distinctions and schisms within the religion known
as Marxism. Yes, exactly, Marxism is a religion with high priests,
mystical texts, mystical jargon, an intercore elite, a hierarchy, saints like
Zarazinsky, who was considered the pure flame, the saint of Marxists. He
was the great Marxist martyr, you could say, because supposedly he was willing
to do to give everything to the revolution. Is the philosophy of Derzynski the
doctrine of flux and the unity of opposites. According to plane An Aerosol,
Heraclidis believed extreme views that led to logical incoherence. Everything is constantly changing and
opposites are actually identical, so that everything is and is not at the same
time. In other words, universal flux and the identity of opposites entail of
denial of the law of noncontradiction. Now, this you'll notice, is absolutely
applicable to Marxism, because Marxism's praxeology necessitates the acceptance of contradictions. You see.
This is what I was trying to illustrate, and a lot of people
don't know this. The reason that you can't have a debate with a Marxist
is because Marxists don't have the same presuppositions about what laws of history, laws
of logic, and facts are. They're not what you think they are.
All of these things are merely tools in the tool kit to engage in revolutionary
action. You're not entering into a debate with a committed serious Marxists to figure
out the truth. For them, debate is an action of praxis by which
they contradict engage in power relations, to further the dialectic, to oppose you
at all costs, and to oppose each other. In fact, Marxism necessitates
that each generation of Marxists opposed the previous generation of Marxists. And until you
understand that, you will never understand this system. You will be thinking that
you're figuring out some law of history, some deterministic scientific structure of the phases
of history. And that's not what Marxism is. Until you realize that Marx
intentionally and had no problem contradicting himself and modifying the system and doing things that
contradicted it, it will never make sense to you. But notice the statement
there. Everything is flux and changing, opposites are identical. The higher level
Marxists even discussed this and talk about it, because I believe Marxism was actually
run out of London in New York. And so when we go to the
higher level Marxists like HG. Wells H G. Wells and say, monopoly
capitalism is no different than Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, because opposites are ultimately
identical and they're all moving towards the synthesis. So capitalism must clash with Marxism,
communism. But the product is not either one. The product is the
synthesis. The product is Klauss, not Stalin, not tiny mustache man.
Those are all just lower level dialectical manifestations, and not even Dave Rockefeller and
his money elite. Until you understand this and the law of opposites and the
contradictions and the embracing of contradiction for the purpose of embracing the dialectic and the
philosophy of process, you cannot understand the system. You will be arguing against
nothing, nothing, pointlessness, straw men, red herrings, and all of
the Marxists who don't understand this, who are just dumb ideologus and low IQ
dupes, college of goobers. They are also dupes of this trapped in the
dialectic. All of this, by the way, is actually also outlined in
the Rakowski interrogation. Interesting. Rikowski says everything that I'm saying. Interesting.
I wonder why that would be. Why would he say everything I'm saying now.
I didn't come to this through reading the Rikowski interrogation. I came to
this through a lot of years of reading and studying and studying under Marxists.
And yet the famous in KVD interrogation of the trotsky I Christian Rakowski has Rikowsky
stating everything that I'm telling you. There is the link to the Rikowski interrogation
if you want to go down that rabbit hole. So that's enough of Heraclitis,
because I think we can we can see the fundamental ideas in Heraclitis of
revolutionary metaphysics. Right, everything is in flux. Now again, he's still
couched within the idea of explaining a universal metaphysical truth. Right. So it's
not until we get post Enlightenment where we get supposedly the rejection of metaphysics,
after David Human, after Emmanuel Kant that later Marxists will then begin to say
we are anti metaphysics, even though it's contradictory because they affirm metaphysics every time
they talk about states of reality, about universal claims about what is or is
not the case is and is not our statements of existence. Those are predicates
of what exists and what does not exist. Materialism is the case. That's
a metaphysical statement. It's an ontological statement, to be more precise, because
it's a statement of what being is, what is the type of being of
which all things exist, it is matter. They say, matter is the
fundamental of all existence. So even though they might give credence to ideas,
in my view, that's just a contradiction. Okay, you can't give an
account for ideas. You realize that your system needs ideas to be coherent,
and it also needs things like laws. But you have a contradiction in the
system whereby you don't have an account for a justification for the belief in ideas
or in laws of logic. Thus, they then revert to embracing contradictions,
and they make the system unfalsifiable because they will say, if you are engaged
in arguing against them, you are arguing from the position of bourgeoisie. So,
in other words, every argument against Marxism is already immediately validated because it
comes from a bourgeois opposition of Marxism. So it's an unfalsifiable system, you
see. And that, by the way, is a common weak point,
a crack in any so called system, right because the system has to It's
like much like the papacy. You can't argue against the papacy because the papacy
is infallible. Well, what about all the time was where it contradiction.
It's no longer teaching correctly and Francis is teaching heresy. Oh well, those
were never infallible declarations, you see. So it's a ever moving goalpost,
which then makes the system unfalsifiable. But unfalsifiable systems are usually false systems.
They're always false systems. So there we have the key figure of Heraclitis,
and then we want to move up to later on this great book that is
very important for Orthodox theology, because you might not know that the Orthodox,
especially in Byzantium, shut down the Platonic academies. Right, Aristotle kind of
became the philosopher, so to speak, of apodictic logic. Palamos writes the
Apodictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, accepting a lot of the basic principles of
Aristotlian logic. That's not to say that there weren't some Neoplatonic influences on Saint
Maximus or on Palamos even when it came to the Logi. But when it
came to the Platonic academy, Byzantium shut it down. However, it gets
revived, and when it was shut down in Byzantium is actually underground for many,
many years, and one of the key figures in the underground Platonic Academy
was gi missed those Plethon. Plethon was interesting because he was a unique atheist
Platonist. So you might think, we'll wait a minute, how can you
be atheist Platonists? Well, Plethon saw the ideas of Plato not as existing
in a transcendent realm, but really as symbolic of this realm, or patterns
and structures of this realm. And so there's not a personal God ultimately that
unifies and gives meaning to reality, and plethon system. For Plethon, atheistic
Platonism is the ultimate answer. And if I recall, I think Plethon also
tried to give place to process and change because in Platonism there's always a never
ending question about how to give an account for change. Right. That's one
of the reasons Aristotle disagree with Plato. There was many others, but one
reason was that Aristotle didn't believe that Plato had a good account for change.
Right. He didn't have a good account for the relationship of the realm of
the ideas to the realm of the here and the now, which is change
in flux, and so this is partly what motivates Aristotle's response to both the
Presocratics and to Plato. So in Byzantium. This figure of Plethon left scholars
of Platonism puzzled as they struggled to understand the project described in his big treatise,
The Nomoy. It entailed abandoning Christian orthodoxy and to revive the ancient pagan
notions that were at present in Plato. The only copy of this work was
burned by Patriarch Gannadio Scolarios, who kept some excerpts to prove that he was
justified in destroying it. After the publication, fragments survived by translated by Charles
Alexander in eighteen fifty eight. A variety of different interpretations of Plethon's Platonism have
been suggested, ranging from the idea that he was the leader of a pagan
cell operating in the Peloponnese and to the idea that he was this is his
secret society, a whole story apostosy from Christian Orthodoxy, amongst other philosophers.
They argue that the background of these scholarly impact impast Cinecioglu's book tackles a problem
of making the sense of Pletho's Plethon's pagan Platonism for the point of view of
the history of ideas. It explores the intellectual history of the fourteenth century as
the current context on which Plethon's philosophy has been understood. As a result,
what he offers is not a general introduction, but rather a historical survey of
this enigmatic figure. The result is a learning and stimulating book. Okay,
yeah, we got it. The book is organized in various parts, and
here's the key point where it gets to the end. Now, notice underground
Platonism right as a sort of secret society throughout Byzantium. I want to get
you to the end because the ultimate thesis of the book vindicates a lot of
what I've talked about, and it vindicates what's in this book. And this
is the idea that I don't know if this is just somebody's analysis of the
book, but the platonic atheism influences Spinoza, and that also influences the illuminists
of the time period that we're talking about. This time period, so there's
a direct ideological lineage from Plethon's atheistic platonism to Spinoza and to vyshopped in those
characters, and Sinesia Glue even says that he says that the illuminists of the
vishoped era are influenced by this philosophy. So if you've not read it,
I highly recommend the excellent book, very well documented Cambridge Production, Radical Platonism
and Byzantium Utopia and Gamistus Plethon by Nikitas Sinsia Blue. So that's you see
how we're tracing this up through and by the way, for those that don't
know, also, the chief philosophical ideological opposition to the Church Fathers throughout the
first seven Ecumunical Councils is Greek Hellenic dialectics. Every one of the Ecumunical Councils
is battling various dialectical argumentation either this or that. Either Jesus is human or
is divine, Either the Trinity is a unitarian thing or its tri theism.
Either Jesus is his will is overtaken by the Divinity, or he's subsumed in
the Divinity. It's either or is dialectics constantly because Greek philosophy as we saw
with Heraclidus is premised on the necessity of opposites. The necessity of opposites.
Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox philosophy is premised on the rejection of metaphysical dialectical oppositions.
There are oppositions in nature, sure, but it's not a necessary opposition number
one, because this world is fallen. So you would only take these things
to be natural if you didn't believe in the fall. But our world is
not natural. It is in a degraded or unnatural state because of the fall.
Nature is still good, but as Paul says in Romse, it is
in bondage to corruption until the Eskaton. But regardless, the state that we're
in now, although not inherently evil, is not itself the ideal state.
It's not the identic state. It's not what we have in the Eskaton.
Right, And so all of Western philosophy is premised on dialectics, and this
is one of the key elements that distinguishes Orthodox Christianity from all the other philosophies.
And I would argue even far Eastern philosophies, for Eastern philosophies are also
in meshed and dialectics either or all reality is one thing, or it's two
things, or it's no thing. Those are all dialectics. And whenever I
talk about this, people don't know what I'm talking about, and they get
confused. They don't know what they think. Dialectics is the same thing as
dialectical method. No, don't know. That's that's pedagogy. That's teaching.
Okay, that's question and answer back and forth. Nothing wrong with that.
That's just classic ways to teach people. The alnktic method. I'm talking about
metaphysical dialectics, that all reality is fundamentally constantly flux and struggle, strife and
emotion. Nothing is fixed, nothing is objectively true or in permanence or in
stasis other than what the party dictates you see. So in this way,
it's very similar to the metaphysical discussion that O'Brien says to Winston in the Metaphysics
Debate in nineteen eighty four. So he said, but wait a minute,
Lennon argues for objective truth, he doesn't think that everything is flux and sophistry.
Yeah, but that's just contradicting. And the question is not does he
think that or does he say that? The question is is that consistent with
the rest of what he says? No, it's not right. So again,
just like Thomass, they think that stating a position is an argument.
Likewise, Marxist, let me state what Lennon's positions are. As if the
question is what is the position, the question is is the position true?
Is it coherent? Are there good reasons to believe it? People don't even
know the difference between stating a position and arguing for the position, what is
your position? Versus why should we believe the position? It should be pretty
obvious, it's a really basic thing, and people don't. They don't know
what this is. They're lost. So I've seen hundreds of comments over the
past few days as a result of all this Marxist jew or driver, and
I've not seen but maybe one or two of the entire crowd of them even
understand the difference between stating a position and explaining why we should believe that position.
I mean, it's like, it's not it's not hard. Yeah,
reality is reality exactly what Tea jumps it. All Right, So we've gotten
to her Clydes, We've gotten too Plethon, We've gotten up into the Enlightenment
figures now we're going to take a look at the Renaissance and her Medicist figures.
This is also Plethon's stuff will influence a lot of these Renaissance figures as
well. So Plethon's era's era is thirteen fifty five to fourteen fifty two when
Byzantium falls. A lot of this ideological heritage goes to places like you got
it, Renaissance Italy. Not just Renaissance Italy, it also goes throughout Europe.
With we get Marsilio Ficino, we get the Medici's, we get the
Flooring Team revival of Neoplatonism, which undergirds the Renaissance. So next we're gonna
look at this book Hagel and her Meticism because and I think this, I
can't remember if he argues that this this is like a Hegelian drawing, right,
This is a Hagel's drawing of how the dialectic of the the synthesis works.
And you can see that it is an actual occult drawing, right,
So Hagel, So it's like triangles on top of triangles on top of triangles.
Right, this is the dialectical process of thesis and tithesis producing the synthesis,
and people have tried to argue with me over the years that don't tell
what Hegel's is. He don't really too. No, Hegelian philosophers show that
that is what he says in that way. I had Hegel classes and all
my professors told me that that's what Hegel teaches. And I'm talking about people
who studied under Marxists, he Gaelians. So again, none of these people,
so internet goobers that are twenty years old, no more than the PhDs
in Hegel. My undergrad professor wrote his thesis on Hagel and Marx. So
my adviser studied under the guy who studied under Habermoss writes his PhD thesis on
Hegel. I would I think he would know what Hegel teaches. All right,
So there you see the triadic thesis structure, and note that this has
nothing to do with the Christian Trinity. It's another example of why you can't
do thesis, why you can't do a word concept fallacy here because Hegel says,
oh, I believe in the trinity, and then you ask Hegel what
the trinity is, and it's thesis and antithesis, synthesis right. I mean
Hegel's Trinity is imminentized into the world historical process. Okay, that's Hegel's trinity.
God is the absolute of all historical process in Hegel thesis and antitis a
synthesis moving to the omega point, moving to the absolute where everything becomes absolute
spirit. So let's look at some of these figures that influence Hegel and we're
gonna understand why this is such a weird esoteric philosophy. By the way,
if you're going to support the show, you can via the superchat function right
there. Super chats are done via stream Labs, and I'm giving you the
whole historical ideological drift, the background to understanding Marxism and Socialism, which cannot
be understood without understanding first Hegel, Hegel's influences, and then the hermatic and
ancient Hellenic pre Socratic influences. There's really literally no other way to understand Marxism,
and of course none of the other Like when libertarians are out there critiquing,
they don't not every libertarian. I think doctor James Lindsay does have a
good basic idea of what we're talking about today. He's correct, but most
of the libertarian like response to Marxism is super low tier. They don't go
any They don't know any of this stuff, because if they did know this,
they would know that their philosophy is also part of that dialectic. Again,
the key here is rejecting of all the dialectics. And every time I
say that people have no idea what I'm talking about, they're just lost.
It's like, what does it mean? What do you mean? So here
we have Yeah, so I don't believe that money is evil, right,
the love of money is evil, not money. So you can get out
of here. Don't have any interest in talking to you. If you want
to support the show, you can via stream labs. So again, thank
you for the super chats that we got last night. We got one so
far, so i'll read those perhaps here in a bit. So in doctor
McGee's text he goes into the historical influences on Hagel from the esoteric tradition,
and we're gonna name some of these figures. The first he calls the early
her meticis that had an influence such as the Neo Platonic philosophers. Hegel admired
Proclus quite a bit, so he was influenced by neo Platonic philosophy. I
think that's pretty obvious, pretty well known. Another famous mystic from that time
period was Meister Eckhart. Eckhart was a mystic in Gotha about twelve sixty.
He died in thirteen twenty seven. No one has demonstrated the direct Hermetic influence
on Eckhart, but his thought exhibits certainly Hermetic influence has co opted out of
German hermeticis in later times. Eckert significance for German philosophy and intellectual culture cannot
be overestimated. In fact, Eckert dominates from any centuries German mystical philosophy afterwards,
and certainly the Apliphatic. And I would argue that Eckert's a manifestation of
Roman Catholic theological inadequies inadequacies of that time, because you'll notice that it's it's
totally it's a trinitarian heresy in Eckert. Eckert preached that just as the Son
requires the Father to give him existence, so the Father is not Father without
the Son. Thus God would not be God without the created order. So
we have the problem of modal collapse and the notion of creation as a necessity
and not ex nilo that always results out of absolute divine simplicity problems in the
West. So philioque, which is again under the mystical philioque of Platinus and
and Eads, is what underlies Eckert. God would not be God without creation.
God must create to actualize who he is. This is actually an Aristotelian
argument. This is why Basil calls Aristotle a diad heretic. This is one
of the most innovative of Eckert's Hermetica. Just as in Hegel more than five
hundred years later, God the Father is conceived of as an abstract and incomplete.
The nature or creation is the Son. The Son is an emanation that
returns to the Father, and thus the Holy Spirit, as in Hegel,
is mankind. So again, what is Hegelianism immanentized pantheism. It's neoplatonism pantheized.
Nicholas of Cusa again the famous hermeticist who on the basis of the philioquay
argued that there was an internal process philosophy going on in God and Nicholas Acusa.
By the way, influence is not just German idealism, but also Leibniz
is monads. Creation is a necessity in Nicholas of Cusa because Nicholas Acusa identifies
nature in person much the same way that people like A Quinnas do. Now
wait a minute, you're lying Quantas believes in creation. Yeah, that's called
a contradiction. So collapsing nature into person, collapsing will and energy into essence,
and then saying that you believe in creation x Neilo does not believe that
you consistently believe. It does not mean you consistently believe. It just means
you contradict. Other Renaissance neoplatemists had a tremendous influence on Hagel, particularly Jacob
Boheim and the over laps with Cobbalism. Pico della Mirandola, Johann Royklin,
Cornelius Agrippa, who was a famous Renaissance majus, and Giordano Bruno all have
a tremendous influence on the figure of Hegel and his process philosophy. For Boheim
and many of these characters, logos is not a is not the second person
of the Godhead, as with Gnostic conceptions of the logos. Jacob Boheim's wisdom
or Logos is conceived of as an active It is the source of the further
specifications of God's corpore reality. For Boheim, God's wisdom or Logos is conceived
of as female, is metaphorically female. So here we have Sophia philosophy of
Bulgakov already in Jacob Boheim, which is also heterodox, and Wisdom is personified
as a female in Proverbs and then identified as the Logos, the second person
that God had been John. So it's an analogy. It doesn't mean that
God is literally a woman, or that the Logos is a woman, or
that there's some other person in the trinity known as Sophia or this quasi trinitarian
per This is all hermeticism, right, So when you see the Hermetic philosophy,
you can see that Bulgakov is just regurgitating Hermetic philosophy. So Rosicrucianism and
Freemasonry are becoming very popular. Also at the time of Hegel's academic career,
three works modestly proposed the general reformation of the entire world. The Rosicrucian Manifesto
centered around the legendary figure of Christian Rosencointz, who was supposed to have been
born as thirteen seventy eight and taught the Hermetic arts by the Arabs, and
then died in fourteen eighty four. The Rosicrucian writings contain, in the words
of scholar Antoine five right, traces of Kabbala, Pythagoreanism, and Paracelticism.
The Rosa Christian manifestos then would influence Hegel, I presume at his and when
he was when he was an academic. Hegelian philosophy also is similar to free
Masonic philosophy, because, as I showed, I think I think I put
this up on Twitter several months ago, if you look at Albert Pike's account
of what the Trinity and the generation of the Sun is, it's the same
as these hermatic ones. And I found this by going and reading the entire
chapter that Albert Pike has on the Church Fathers. Believe it or not,
Albert Poke has a chapter on the Church Fathers in Morals and Dogma. And
the amazing thing that I did not expect act was Pike's conclusion at the end
of that chapter is that Origin and Neoplatonism are the true Christianity. In that
wild let me see if I can find that. Dang it, it never
comes up when I want it. Used to you could search. Maybe I
should search X. It's not gonna come up. Used to you could search.
Oh here it is, huh amazing. Yeah, I came up And
I'll re share this on Twitter in case people want to go see it.
But so this is a morals and Dogma of Albert Pike kind of summarizing.
It's like the systematic theology or systematic philosophy of Scottish Rite Freemasonry. And I'm
just showing that it says and it aligns with what we've been reading so far
in these treatises to show a commonality between Neoplatonism gnosticism, which Albert Pike tries
to synthesize all these right, and he says that the true Christianity is a
generic first cause, and he makes an Aristotelian argument there of a necessary creation
from the one of Plato, that is an emanation. And then he says,
here's so the eternal world is necessary because God is an eternal creator.
He makes origins argument. This is Albert Pike Morals and Dogma, page five,
seventy five. And as the thought of the soul emanating from the soul
becomes audible invisible in words. So did the thought of God the logo,
springing up with within himself immortal as himself when once he conceived immortal before because
in himself uttering himself was the word, the logos, it's manifestation and mode
of communication. Thus create material, mental, spiritual universe, which, like
him, never began to exist. The world is an eternal emanation that is
synonymous with the eternal beginning of the Son. This is the real idea of
the ancient nations, generic God, the almighty Father and the source of all,
and his thought conceiving the universe and willing its creation because it is just
as necessary as his essence. That is a modal collapse argument in Albert Pike,
the same argument that origin makes for eternal worlds. Because if God is
eternal God, an eternal Father, an eternal creator, there must be eternal
world of which he is provident, Lord and creator, and that world is
the Son or the logos. So you have the collapsing of the persons the
god Head into the imminent process of the world. God is a world process,
the logos is the world historical world process. Exactly what Hagel says,
So I don't know for sure if Hagel was in some lodge. If if
if he was, it'll be in Terry Malanson's excellent book, which is I
think is today probably the most scholarly work on the seventeenth century Bavarian Illuminati.
So if you don't have Perfected Bilis, it's by my publisher. I recommend
getting Perfected Bilis. I don't have the text with me, so I can't
remember or look up if Hegel was in it. But I know that the
King of Prussia was a freemason and made of the circles of the Prussian elite
were totally involved in the philosophy of the lodge, which, as you can
see from Pike, is essentially a kind of originism slash Pantheism slash Neoplatonism.
So now that we come up to Hagel, we can understand as you see
here Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy. He gives quiet a space here
to Heraclitis. I'm not going to reread all this because a lot of this
is what you heard me explaining about Heraclitus. But why am I showing you
this well which website has this did you did you happen to see which website?
This was? Uh, Marxist dot org. Interesting Marxist. So Marxist
dot Org understands that there's a crucial importance of Regilianism two Marxists thought and philosophy.
So this is for the not so smart Marxists out there, street level,
basement dwelling Marxists. All right, So, by the way, did
you know we'll get to this a little bit. You've heard of Marxist satanic
poems, right, And every year somebody tells me have you read marx and
said, like, you need to read this book. I've read this book.
I read this book fifteen years ago. So I'm very familiar with marx
and Satan by Richard Verne Brown, and he goes through the kind of the
darker side of Marxism, the early satanic poetry of Marxism. If you've not
read Verban's book, I'd recommend it again. I read it fifteen years ago.
There's no need to tell me about these texts. I'm very familiar with
him. But thank you for those super chats. You want to support the
show via super chats, you can do so right here. These are just
little tidbits by the way. So let's go to the influences on Mars,
and we'll be looking at Fire in the Minds of Men, which is this
great book here, Origins of the Revolutionary Faith by James H. Billington.
As we said, not a conspiracy text, but rather a history of ideas
text. So it's crucial for the history of revolutionary movements, their origin,
their influences, and it's it's not an anti revolutionary text. Billington is a
believer in and a fan of the revolutionary philosophy. So the first thing we
want to look at is is the early chapters where he discusses what you've probably
heard me talk about the fourth Hour, Lord Voltimore, which is the influences
on the French Revolution. One of the first figures was the apostle of the
revolutionary religion coming out of Italy early on was the figure of one Rotty.
So if you don't know, Buona Roti is kind of the proto. He's
the John the Baptist you could say, to the revolutionary movements of this period.
And then we move on to the milieu of Freemasonry. So notice freemasonry
is antithetical, it is revolutionary philosophy, and it is revolutionary for both the
fake right wing and the fake left wing. Right here so here's Billington's section
on freemasonry. You can see that it's again not this is from a famous
historian, not a conspiracy theorist. Billington points out that what a Rodi's revolutionary
organization went far beyond the most sonic models. It was influenced by his five
year immersion in the Masonic meetings that he spent in Geneva. So great was
the great general impact of free masonry on the revolution era that some understanding the
Masonic milieux is essential Masonry imparted to the revolutionary tradition at its birth. The
essential metaphor that revolutions would be understand are to understand their own mission. Down
to the mid nineteenth century, the architect building a new and better structure for
human society. Mason's believed, or were taught that they were recreating in their
fraternal societies, the original state of nature, the original natural condition that supposedly
prevailed amongst the earlier artistan Masons who shaped stones for a common building, the
progression of each brother through the stages of an apprentice, the journeyman to the
Master required philosophical and philanthropic accomplishment rather than social status. Free and accepted.
Masonry was thus a moral meritocracy, implicitly subversive with any static society based on
a traditional aristocracy, nobility, monarchy, church, or hierarchy. Men of
intelligence and ambition in eighteenth century often experienced within the Masonic lodges. They kind
of brotherhood amongst equals not found in aristocratic hierarchical societies. Each novice in the
lodge sought to become free and perfect as a man, and the Mason thus
capable of reading the plans of the divine architect to rebuild Solomon's temple. What
is the rebuilding of Solomon's temple? It is the erecting of the proper orchestrated
society. So it's a social revolutionary movement. Masonry was interested in rebuilding and
reshaping the secular order. So when they talk about building the Temple of Solomon,
they're talking about secular social order. Mason Masonry's ritualized fraternity provided the upper
mobility for many of those who were gentry or wealthy that we're not part of
the older aristocracy. It also promised for many the serious possibility of a utopia,
at least a social alternative to the anchin regime. That's what you called
the older French monarchy. Philip Orleans was the titular head of French Grand Orient
Masonry at the time of the French Revolution, and most of the pro revolutionary
denizens of the cafes of the Palais Royal were his Masonic brothers. In other
words, the French Revolution was started by all of the circles of the Duke
of Orleans and his lodge buddies of the Grand Orient. The cafes and the
salons is where all the revolutionaries would hang up drinking coffee and figuring out how
to destroy society. Oh but it's destroying society to fix it, you see,
to set up the equalitarian society. What's the egalitarian society? Liberty,
equality, fraternity. Do you know about the Declaration of the Rights of Man?
The Declaration of the Rights of Man is a Freemasonic document of this time
period of the revolutionaries, and it even includes the all seeing eye of Providence,
which is not a divine not not a personal god. It's just the
it's just the process philosophy. Do you see that Declaration of the Rights of
Man, French revolutionary document, giant all seeing eye because Freemasonic lodges were behind
both the American and French revolutions. And there she is with her chunky,
milky boobies hanging out, lady, liberty right, liberty equality fraternity. You
ever have you heard of this anywhere recently? Liberty equality fraternity? I wonder
what that comes from. I wonder what it means. Oh, it means
all men are equal, all when men and women are equal. Radical egalitarianism,
Well, that's the left wing revolutionary philosophy. That's the philosophy of the
Jacobins and the Illuminists, and that's what we're reading about right now. As
Billington goes on to explain that radical egalitarianism was the operating philosophy of these people.
Now, I thought we were scientific. I thought we were scientifically studying
nature to produce the scientific philosophy of history and determinism known as Marxism. Well,
but to wait a minute, does nature actually teach that everybody's equal?
Pretty sure that we're not all equal? And how far do you take that
equality? Because I see today's society, which is thoroughly revolutionary arguing that everything
is equal, there are no boundaries, there are no distinctions, and so
we start to see the pattern emerging that actually this philosophy he gives way to
an anti natural philosophy, that distinctions are the problem, distinctions between nations.
Nations are bourgeois ethnicities made up distinction, biology made up distinction. All distinctions
must be collapsed to bring in what Huxley calls the final Revolution. All of
these revolutions are not to no end or to no purpose. They're what Huxley
calls the final revolution, and that is the revolution against man himself again people
who are anti human, people like zer Zinsky, revolutionary philosophers who are negating
the negations and negating man himself. But he explicitly points out that it is
an illuminist model of radical egalitarianism that's fomenting and bubbling in the Masonic societies,
that is not purely from the ground up. It is run by the Duke
of Orleans. The lesser nobility are running this, and they're getting money from
somewhere. I wonder where. Well, it quickly tells us where they're getting
money for the revolutions. Do you think that it just came out of nowhere,
all these growdy, greasy street people, Danton type people, demagogues.
You think they didn't have any money. How did they have the revolution?
Well, they emptied the jail, that giant freit the name of it,
that giant jail. They emptied out all the people and said, hey,
join us in a bloody revolution, join their and it's all a bunch of
criminals. Oh yeah, exactly, that's what they're gonna do. That's what
they're doing now, the same revolutionary model. It's elites behind this, just
like the Duke of Orleans who ran Grand Orient Freemasonry, who got money from
very wealthy families. Let's open up the jails. There's our revolutionary force,
a giant criminal thug class. And that's literally who then beheaded all the elites.
In France, Freemason provided the general if Freemasonry provided the general milieu and
symbolic vocabulary for revolution organization, it was the Illuminus that provided the basic structural
model. The organizational plan of Buonaroti distilled two decades of revolutionary experience in Geneva
and thus into a simple Bavarian order of illuminists. The radical secular occult movement
notice that's not a contradiction. Radical secular occult movement was organized on three levels
of a secret hierarchy church, synod, and areopagite Buonarotti's revolutionary version of the
structure defined the new church. It's an atheistic cell church of local cells headed
by what they called a sage who was alone linked with a regional synod,
so basically an altar church. It's a secret church. The members of each
synod were the sublime elect, headed by a territorial deacon who supervised the activities
of all the quote churches in the region. The highest Areopagite grade was called
the Great Firmament, or the Heavens sent out its own subtle deacons to control
the synods and supervise propaganda and agit prop agit prop arising from illuminist figures like
Bunarotti. Now this is another thing to understand that when you are debating with
a Marxist again, you are not actually debating with a person who is interested
in coming to truth. Now, there might be an individual Marxist who doesn't
know this kind of stuff, who maybe at an individual level he genuinely wants
to learn or know some truth, but Marxists in general do not operate from
the vantage point of wanting to come to and discover truth. In fact,
Saul Alinsky I believe, says that embracing contradictions is the necessary process of an
agent. Right, I'm of an activist. An activist truly engaging in practis,
Lensky says, accepts and embraces contradictions. So again, you will never
get consistency and coherency in a system which embraces and and rejects logic, or
embraces logic and then rejects it by accepting contradictions. And again, adjet prop
is another one of their key techniques because adjet prop is sort of street theater
agitation, and it's a form of propaganda. So for many Marxists, debating
is not arriving at truth or proving your position. Debating is intentional conflict,
causing emotions, causing drama. Everything that you saw the last three days on
Twitter with these lunatics and unstable people, they're engaging in adjetprop because that's what
their philosophy tells them to do. And for the early Bolsheviks, for example,
for adjetprop it the term originates in so Union, but Marxists were doing
this for a long time. They would use popular media, plays, literature,
pamphlets, and other forms of art to just simply push their message.
Had nothing to do with what was true or false, right, So it's
all just propaganda, and it even used street theater. Adjetprop theater arose as
a politicized theater in the nineteen twenties of Europe to spread to the United States.
The plays of Bertold Brecht are notable examples. By the way, I've
read bert Told Breck's plays. I had a whole class on German playwrights,
and I read one or two of Bertold Breck, and so he was a
Marxist. I guess who you know was a believer in engaging in this kind
of adjet prop. Right, So you can see that the street theater has
nothing to do obviously. Street theater has nothing to do with truth, right,
It's just about being a provocateur. So it does overlap with provocateurs.
Not every adjet prop is run by an agent provocateur, but every agent provocateur
most likely engages in aget prop agitation, propaganda agitate to just call attention nothing
to do with what's true. By the way, this is not exclusive to
Marxists. Basically all of mainstream mass media is aget prop Okay, so this
is not just Marxists, but Marxists are committed to this as actually part of
their practice. Okay, but you can begin to see how because they embrace
contradictions, they embrace dissociation, they embrace double mind and double think. This
is what Orwell talks about, orl talks about that this embracing of contradictions,
which Winston tries to force and eventually does force Winston to do, causes a
split, a break in Winston's mind. And you remember when that lunatic guy
came on the stream, he said, I'm here to destroy your mind.
I'm here to psychologically destroy you. Because that's how the Marxist sees his necessary
action of negating, negating the existing reality to further the dialectic. So they
have a mystical religious commitment to process philosophy and destruction as a form of creative
chaos. Creative destruction is a Marxist idea. This, by the way,
is why ultimately this whole nonsense satanic system is called by father Seraph from Rose
revolutionary nihilism, and he's absolutely right. And if you remember, in the
first a few pages of the book, he talks about the processes of revolution.
A lot of the lower level dupes believe that the revolution is about idealism
and making people, feeding people and making their lives better. No, it's
not about that at all. Again, this whole system is only for dupes.
And some of the more intellectual people who become kind of the high priests
of Marxism, they kind of learn the reality of it, like Christian Rakowski.
Rakowsky was actually a high level right initiative all this, And when you
read the interrogation, he lays it all out and he's like, yeah,
it's we embrace the opposites. Marxism needs capitalism, Capitalism needs Marxism, and
that clash of the twentieth century must happen and it will eventually give rise to
a total world government. That is the end goal, he says. And
he says, you think that I'm told what to do out of Moscow.
No, he's being interrogated by Moscow. He says, I'm told what to
do out of New York and London. Nihilism Roots of the Revolution of the
Modern Age by Father Sea from Rose perfectly encapsulates and presubsitionly, deconstructs and refutes
all of what you've heard in the last few days of these lunatics and their
nihilistic, destructive philosophy. And so you can see why, just as in
the French Revolution, Marxism appeals to not just young naive people, it appeals
to fanatics, to people who believe that they can change all of society,
right, so very divorced from reality, notions the idea that you can instantiate
and create this quasi utopian or something akin to a utopian society. I mean,
the only people who the only person who could believe that is an extremely
idealistic young person or a later delusional fanatic person as they get older. Right,
by the way, Billington's comments on fascism are also good because he explains
that guess what, it may not be identical to this, but it's the
same people, and it's the same socialist ideology. Right it's national socialism versus
international socialism, but they're both the same socialist philosophies in principle, because if
you read the Ricosk interrogation, he says, we need tiny mustache man to
engage in the war the wars of the twentieth century are the dialectical process.
War is the pre eminent dialectic. Cold War is dialectic. And this is
why there's another good book on this. And you probably wouldn't expect me to
recommend this person, but this is actually a pretty good book. Old Gary
North. Remember Gary North, Marx's religion of revolution. Gary North is actually
correct in this. He gives a different account than what you typically hear about
Marxism, where North correctly argues, as I'm arguing today, that Marxism is
akin to a religion. Far from being a scientific theory and a scientific appraisal
of the determining processes of history, that's what it claims to be. Marxism
is actually a revolutionary religion because it promises people many things to to believe in
for the future. So not only does Marxism, which bear atheistic scientism doesn't
have. Here's the great thing about why Marxism has such an appeal. I
think Gary North is spot on about this. I don't agree with a lot
of Gary North, obviously being a you know, Calvinist reconstructionist guy, but
they still, you know, rush JUNI and North got some things right.
And North got this point right, that Marxism is is a type of religion
with a high priesthood, with mystical doctrines of material process and so forth,
dogmas and pseudoscience, and so it promises that the outer portico lower dupe levels.
Too many people. You tell now, the smarter Marxist will say,
Marx never actually said there would be a dystopia, talked about the possibility religis
not actually, yeah, we know, we know, we know that in
the inner Party and the inner religion, it's not really utopian, and it's
actually nihilistic and anti human I know all that. But for many people,
for many of the masses that believed in it, they thought, oh yeah,
we're gonna get you know, a chicken in every pot. We're gonna
get you know, better living standards, and the government loves us, and
it's gonna divvy up the uh, you know, the capital, right,
the capitalists have hoarded the capital. And if we just appoint a body of
Marxists, they'll equally, they'll dole it out equally at everybody, because they're
fair and they're nice people and they love us. That's the normy belief.
The dumb dumbs that believe in the system. They believe in a kind of
as catological hope, not of an end times, but a material historical process
that will provide man material gains, sufficient and safety supposedly in a near future
history. So it has an eschatology, is what I'm trying to say.
It doesn't just have an eschatology, it also has a philosophy of history.
History is the dynamic interchange of class warfare, which is a manifestation of the
dialectic. So most of the time when Marxists are dialectic, the classic Marxists,
they think of class warfare. I am not talking about that when I'm
talking about dialectics. Primarily, I am talking about the metaphysical presuppositions of all
forms of dialectics, whether it be dialectical idealism and Hegel or dialectical materialism in
marx those are metaphysical beliefs. That's what I'm talking about. And so Gary
North has a great deconstruction and critique of how the belief, the mystical religious
belief is literally in creative destruction, generation through chaos, as North calls it,
and he's absolutely correct. So back to the Illuminists and the Illuminist model
of Billington. They were engaging in agit prop. And he goes on to
say that the Order of Illuminists was founded in May first, nineteen seventy six
by or excuse me, seventy seventy six by Adam Bishop, professor Kennon Law
at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria. Voishop had four associates. The order
was secret, hierarchical, and modeled on the Jesuits. Now there's a bunch
of dumb dumbs that think that that means that Jesuits run the Illuminati. No,
Jesuits don't run the Illuminati. The structure is modeled on the Jesuits.
Jamie, It's okay. The Order was secret. Itself was hierarchical. I
thought, we believed in liberty, equality, fraternity. Why we have a
Why do we have morals and dogma? If we believe in freedom of conscience
and no dogmas? Why do we believe in a hierarchy? And Adam Vice
shops Illuminati if he believes in radical egalitarianism. Oh, you see, they
embrace contradictions, dummies, they are liars. That's why the Order was secret.
It was established a model on the Jesuits. It had a long domination
in Bavariant education, and it ended with their abolition by the papacy supposedly in
seventeen seventy three. It was dedicated to Vice Shops Rousseauian philosophy. So Rousseau's
a key figure. It's not identical to Rousseau because there are a lot of
elements that Rousseau believed in that the like Rousseau didn't. I don't think he
had a high view of women, right. He was always visiting the prostitutes
as he was writing about you know, equality, equality, right. There's
some other things that we're so talked about, right that I don't think.
But the idea of returning to this pure state of nature or something like that,
that's you find some of that inot Vy shopped the vision of leading all
humans to a new moral perfection. So moral perfection you don't need church and
religion. This you can achieve this naturally through purely naturalistic processes. Thus they
were freed from all establishment religion and establishment political authority, so no authority about
myself. Vyshop did not invite intellectuals to join his new pedagogic elite, as
so much as taunted them to do so. He radiated contempt for men from
the enlightenment who go into all kinds of ecstasies over antiquity, but are themselves
unable to do anything. So vy Shop actually actually disagreed with and hated the
idea of philosophical speculation. And let's read Plato in the g and he's saying,
which Marchull echo, why aren't you engaging in revolutionary action? You see?
He insisted that what was missing is the force, and to put into
practis practice what has long been affirmed by freethinkers. The force was to come
about through a new type of secret society. This secret society would have much
more in the characteristics of a militia with an order, with initiations into higher
levels. The purpose of the ascending of the aluminous hierarchy was not so much
to attain wisdom as it was to be remade into a totally laurel loyal servant
of the universal emission of revolution. So it's the religion the revolution. It's
the faith revolutionary faith. These guys were perceptive enough in human psychology to understand
that humans are fundamentally religious, and so they could turn the atheism, which
was empty and be wrap of any meaning that was popular at this time.
Turn it into a religion which could motivate and push and take society in a
certain direction. So they thought to remodel the entire world. We cannot use
people as they are. We have to make them over to change, and
that's the process of the initiation. In his Secret Society, Bishop helped to
elaborate a process of recruitment which involved creating the novices of a psychological dependence on
the processes which would transform him. Insinuators. Those brought about as new members
were proceeded little by little following the detours. So in other words, there's
deception at the lower ranks, exactly what Albert Pike says that the lower level
people in the blue lodges are duped their dummies, and you're gradually brought into
the structure to become totally devoted to the structure, basically a form of mind
control. The object was the card pledging a new member in his desire for
admission to the higher levels. So you want to be higher, you want
to get to the higher levels, this lust for power, But really you're
just being sifted and vetted Basically, the nerve rocking process sought to mobilize a
new elite within society, and their purpose was quote not to conquer or to
impose, not to gather riches, but to the conquest of individuals. To
conquer their indifference, their passiveness, their obedience, submission, their total confidence
without reservation must be gained. So the goal wasn't even to immediately achieve this,
but to create a society of people completely devoted to the calls the revolutionaries.
Primitive vision of the world was a dualistic struggle between darkness and light,
a neo manic Chian view. Did you hear me? Dialectics dialectical pro The
world was engaged in a struggle between the illuminated ones and the suns of darkness.
The illuminated ones were those in the order of the perfectibilis or the perfect
the perfect i, versus those outside of the order who were profane and believed
in the system and in the structure. The name of the illuminus was chosen
from the image of the sun radiing illumination in outer circles. So the sun
is at the center of the dot and there's concentric circles around the sun,
and that's the structure of the Illuminati. The point in the circle that's by
Shopped and his elite, and you have these concentric circles. The zoroastromaniquean cult
of fire, was also central to the eclectic symbolism of the Illuminus. Their
calendar was based on the Persian rather than the classical Christian model. They use
pseudonyms and symbols, which made for precise esoteric significance throughout the lodges. The
Masonic lodges which they infiltrated, became deliberate instruments of camouflage. For Aluminus,
Ingelstadt was Eleusis and Ephesus, Munich was Athens. Vienna was Rome. Vaishop's
own name in his Illuminous Secret Society was that of Spartacus Spartacus Weischot. That's
because Spartacus was the leader of the slave revolt in ancient Rome, and this
provided a hint of revolutionary commitment. In the original key documents, collaborators took
the names of the Greek Ajax or the Egyptian Danaus, and respectively, other
names such as Tamerlane and Confucius. The Aluminous attempted to use the ferment of
the confusion of the French Revolution for their own ends. Vishot, for example,
joined a Masonic lodge in seventeen seventy seven in an attempt to recruit from
them his own commandos. Later, other famous elite figures like Baron Adolf Vonenigue.
Knigge was a prominent member of the Illuminus and their higher German Masonic orders.
The Illuminous technique was to discredit all conservative rival orders and then bring them
into a stricter secret order. I mean this is important section here. This
helped a helping The Conference of Occult Orders at Wilhelmsbad in seventeen eighty two helped
to determine the strict observance lodges were not in fact descended from the Knights,
Templar and foul, arguing that the strict order of the lodges were secretly controlled
by unknown superiors who were Jesuits. So basically Bishop comes up with as the
lie that the that the existing lodges were controlled by the Jesuits, and so
you need to join my lodge, which is the true truemasonry. So he
it wasn't true that the Jesuits were controlling the Masonic lodges, but wy Shop
used that as a way to get people into his group. Bishop believed in
total equality, so that was a big part of his church and what they
pushed. One of the key figures to disseminate illuminism was Count Mirabeaus the Prussian
monarchy under Frederick the Great. Now that's important because this is around the time.
So this will be the grounds from which Hagel will be born. Okay,
this is pre Hegel, but I'm saying Hagel will come out of this
milieu. Another key figure is Nicholas Bonneville, the decisive channel of illuminist influence.
He was converted to illuminism through his own visits to Persia in seventeen eighty
seven. Bishop's leading associate in the political stage of communism was a guy named
Christian Bode. Bode was a friend of Lesson who had come to win Frenchmen
away from their conservative occultism and to get them into a more radical form of
illuminism. Bode apparently converted the German speaking Bonneville, who was then a lawyer
at Parliament, to a faith combined with that combined illuminous symbolism and radical ideas
of popular sovereignty. Vox popularized sovereignty. Bonneville immediately began his unsuccessful attempt to
convert the Marquis de conder Say, who was a revolutionary, to a more
active faith, hailing the imminent coming of the People King. There would be
a liberating figure, the flame of the world. They called him the Sage
of Rousseau, known as the people King. So we have this messianic prophecy
of this coming people King. However, the group was run not by an
external It was not an egalitarian society. It was actually run by an inner
party, the inner group, known as the Inner Circle. The conspirators have
viewed marchal at mary Shall as the center of the circle. He may have
been, this is unsure, but certainly many people are around the circle of
Bishop of the Inner areopagites. We're part of that of the inner clique.
The goal of the society was in terms of social order, happy equality.
Sounds like jounlock, it sounds like declaration independence. If there was a religion
that was allowed, the religion of Bishop and Mirabeau would be a purely naturalized
religion. Everything would be done by voting, and there would be universal suffrage.
Everyone would vote. Interesting, So women's suffrage comes from Adam Bishop.
In fact, the final goal is of all the radicals universal communism. Did
you hear me? No Bishop saw himself or achieve me. Whether or not.
Buana Rodi was in effect propagandi an aluminous program. During his revolutionary activities
of the seventeen nineties. He had clearly internalized a lot of the illuminous ideas
they would become a blueprint for the eighteen ten to eighteen eleven era, and
the illuminous pretension of recovering a natural religion known only to the illuminated. So
you see that the naturalized religion is the Inner Party's cloak core religion that they
think all the world religions are kind of a bastardization of a religion of quote,
pure reason, a religion pure reason by reviving the legacy of bizarre genealogy,
the Persians of Cyrus, the initiators of Egypt and the Egyptian priests,
the Holy Hermandad of Spain, and the Apostle of Jesus. They viewed Jesus
as a revolutionary the Anabaptists and their revolution as well as the Jesuits. He
followed Bishopton Bonneville, and attaching special importance to the Jesuits, whom he saw
sought both to imitate and to destroy. His secret ideal was, from the
beginning to Buona Roti, the egalitarian equality order that would get rid of all
marks of private property in the republic. The republic will be the sole owner.
The republic will be like a mother. It will afford even each of
its members equality of education, equality of food, equality of labor. This
is Warner saying that the state will own all things and your children. You
will own nothing, You will have nothing, you will be happy. This
is the only regeneration aimed at by the philosophers. This is the new Jerusalem
quote Buonaroti. These quotes Wunarati borrowed from illuminism. For these secret societies,
then, the adopting of numerology and cryptography were not actually about mystical initiations of
supernatural knowledge. They were not about contacting demons or invoking or evoking them.
These were ciphers and codes used for transmitting messages and for espionage. As I
have said for years, what is the illuminist ideal? According to then,
the magic circle refers not to actual magic but the inner circle of the controlling
elite who control the system and the society. Bonnaville, even before the Revolution,
had traced his ideals to Pythagoras, who brought from the Orient, from
the East, the true system of initiation into the Eastern ways. At the
demise of his effort to square the social circle, meant to create or to
understand, that man is God and that man will become an angel by widening
the circle of universal brotherhood, in other words, universal brotherhood, universal communism.
Thomas Payne, who lived with Bonneville from seventeen ninety seven eighteen o two,
believed that the Druids and Pythagoras combined to provide an actual, occult ideological
alternative to Christianity. Thus, Thomas Payne wrote an essay on the Origins of
Freemasonry and how many so called conservative tut Thomas Payne, who literally says that
Druidism is a better alternative to Christianity. In fact, the goal of the
Pythagoree, the Revolutionaries, not the original Pythagoras, was quote to overthrow Christian
orthodoxy. There you go. In fact, the goal was to decapitate the
double headed Eagle. They particularly hated Orthodox Christianity page one oh five, and
so to decapitate the double headed eagle, which stood for church and state,
Bishop and King, Church and state. To decapitate the double headed eagle meant
to destroy thrown an altar, Church and State. So understand, all of
these people telling you that dialectical Marxism is compatible with Christian Orthodoxy are absolutely wrong,
and they're ignorant or they're lying, because the goal of historic revolutionary fosophy
from the seventeen hundreds on is the destruction of thrown an altar and the imposition
of a new religion based around nature, controlled by a one world state that
is present in vy shopped all the way up into the later centuries. In
fact, the Saint Simonians are going to be the next group that we're going
to look at, and we're gonna look at how the Simonians we're one of
the key influences on Mars. Right, who are the three Foyerbach Saint Simon
and Hegel the key influences on Mars. We're gonna look at that in part
two. This is the first half for public. If you enjoyed this discussion,
please leave me a super chat. I'll be reading a few of those
right now. And one thing I'd like to mention is to contrast between what
you get in the Marxists and what they offer you joining a revolutionary, ideological,
ridiculous, AstroTurf movement that will you will regret, regret by the time
that you're out of your twenties or your thirties that you ever were involved in
it or believed that, versus the kind of thing that we promote, which
is teaching you to be your own business leader, teaching you to be independent,
how to be truly masculine, how to run a business, how to
have a family, how to do these kinds of things. So, for
example, what are we pushing? We push things that help you and not
and won't destroy your life like Marxism will. For example, Richard Over at
Autonomy University, I'll give you a little bit of his thing. And by
the way, people said, what's wrong with the audio? The original audio
is the problem. It's not mine self help and you've dipped into some personal
development. But now you ask a question, now, why what can you
do well if you want to escape the apathy? Step right this way.
So twice a year I teach a course called Autonomy. It's a twelve week
personal development and training course. What people get out of it is multifaceted.
There's curriculum, there's exercises, there's camaraderie, you make new friends. There's
a whole lot of interesting things. We're going to hear a sample from the
course right now, and let's take a look at the value these students are
getting. Charlotte departed this world I think two years ago in March, so
probably about two years ago. She lived along full life. She lived up
in Maine, and her website used to be Deliberate dumbingdown dot com, but
American Deception dot com was a site that she did with her son, and
her son was helping her research, and American Deception dot com is where a
lot of the source material used to be. Like the copy that we have
of the Reese Committee hearings is Charlotte's copy. She went and found that copy
and got it and circulated it her work. I remember when I first encountered
her work, I didn't know what to make of it because it was it's
just too overwhelming and out of left field. And I was familiar with Ghatto's
work, but not as much as I could. So Ghatto's work bounced off
me. The first time I saw Charlotte's work, I was like, there's
something here, but I don't know what it is. I did some more
learning, discovered like Tragedy and Hope and Anthony Sutton's work. Then I went
back to those two books. I was like, Oh, these people are
all talking about the same thing. She's talking about the nineteen thirty four Carnegie
Blue Book, which was the internationalist text inserted into America. So the globalist
they're like, here's how we're going to insert into American education and turn it
into our compulsory schooling and reshape it and our image, and we'll remove the
history where we're at war with Britain and then everything will be just hunky dory.
And they got their way, and they did it. So Charlotte,
she's working in the Reagan administration back I think in the eighties, and she
came across some of this information. She was incredulous, and she went and
dug it up and she's like, oh, my goodness, they are systematically
changing the attitudes, values, behaviors, and beliefs of Americans to be in
more in line with communists and collectivists, the removal of individual rights. Basically,
it's a way to a road any of America's power. What did America
have. We had our ability to coin money, and we had freedom of
speech, we had all these things those separated us from the British Empire.
So as they kind of cut those peers one by one, they can do
a controlled demolition of the whole thing. And that's kind of where we're at
in history right now. So we got front row seats. We're like that
movie Grand Tour back in the day. It was time travelers in the future
who would go to big events in the past and they would watch it and
they had like Jeff Daniels, it was an early nineties comedy. But there's
something to have in front seats on like the end of the world type situation.
So I don't see it as a tragedy. I see it as a
big opportunity, a good call to action for everybody to get on the field
and start playing and stop being spectators. Because if these people think they can
do this to our world without us seeing it and doing something about it,
they're wrong. And we're in motion. So Charlotte, her work spans decades
and decades and decades. And that's her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of
America. It's a seven hundred page book. It's heavy duty, it's an
academic quality, it uses real references and resources. It's not hyperbolized. Right.
But her other big contribution that very few people know about is when Charlotte's
father passed away, he was in scullm Bones and Charlotte's grandfather used to work
for Cecil Rhodes in South Africa. He was he was in mining. Okay,
so Charlotte had had conversations with her dad, but he wouldn't tell her
anything. Well, between his death and her going through the attic and then
Scull and Bones sending here's this year's you know book for the members, She's
like, I got this evidence and there's something here, but it's outside of
her purview. She doesn't know. She doesn't she's an expert on the educational
part and she knows there's something to this. She doesn't know what to do,
so she calls up Anthony Sutton and says, Anthony, you know,
your books on the Bolshevik Revolution of Wall Street and all these sort of things
lead me to believe you would be interested in this content, He's like,
send it over. So he wrote a book called America's Secret Establishment and Introduction
to Scull and Bones, and in there there was a report how the order
three to two two, how the Skull and Bones secret Society controls education.
And when you go through and compare what they're saying in their documents to what
Charlotte had found from the Carnegie, there's a comprehensive plan with multiple secret societies
or working groups going toward this same thing with great deal of intention and organization
and budget and long term commitment, multigenerational commitment to their goal. And we
as individuals don't really relate to that because we're just like looking for the paycheck
next week. So we're playing in a game that is not like checkers.
It's not even like chess. It's more like go, which is a game
in Asia to acquire to conquer as much territory as fast as you can.
So it's like a fast moving game. And we're still like a turtle speed,
but tortoise versus the hair. I say, we just go calm,
cool, collected, let's not panic. It's been going on since before we
got here. It's going to go on probably after we leave here, if
we don't do something about it, and let's figure out what we can learn.
Who left us these credible pieces of artifacts, evidence that illustrate what's going
on, like Ghatto, like Israbee, like Sutton, like Carol Quigley,
and let's communicate it's all right. So that's a clip giving you a kind
of introduction to Richard's course, which he's gonna start up pretty soon over at
Autonomy University. Here's the think if you're interested in learning about retooling your education
to become a self sufficient business owner, entrepreneur, an individual who takes control
of their own life, isn't submitting to and absorbed into some idiotic collective and
relying on the system to do things for you. It's still not too late
to become that. In fact, the Pentagon said a few years ago that
their number one enemy is motivated individuals who are active and who are out there
becoming their own business owner, the very thing that Richard's talking about. That's
what the Pentagon literally said, I think about ten years ago, was the
number one danger to the imposition of the technocratic order. Now again, why
does he Why do I think that was a great clip because he mentioned Sutton's
history of Skull and Bones, which is very crucial to the funding of both
Bolshevism, Marxism, and Communism, as well as the funding of tiny mass
mustache men decree the thesis, antithesis, and the synthesis of where we are
today, the coming technocratic order. Sutton wrote about this very thing that you're
hearing me talk about, and the very thing that's talked about in Firing the
Minds of Men, the very thing that's talked about in the Milnerphabian book by
Ratu in decades ago. So people try to discredit Sutton, It's all true.
He's not discredited. Brazinski wouldn't cite him in between two ages if he
was a kook and a crack fought. In fact, he laid all this
out in nineteen eighty three in this history is calling Bones, and he talks
about throughout the book the importance of Hegelianism to this whole system. If you
don't understand Hegelianism, you cannot understand the world that we're going into and in
what way they co opted and utilized the hermetic philosophy of the worship of dialectical
process. So there could be people in the elite, by the way,
they're not Marxists. There might be ideologically platonic neo platonic elite like Hegel,
but there's also dialectical people who believe in the worship of a pure matter and
flux as a mystery religion that we saw earlier. Both of those are amenable
to the technocratic order. And that's why the technocratic order is above. It
is in a way the kind of synthesis already of these existing ideologies. Right,
was Brazinsky anti communist? Many people would say, of course he fought
the Cold War. Well wait a minute, Brazinski calls the Cold War a
manechean dialectic which echoes everything we've been talking about today. And Brazenski, in
fact was not anti socialist. He's anti Soviet, not anti communist or socialist.
And that's why for the synthesis now that the Soviet has evaporated, now
they believe they will get the synthesis of what was formerly Eurasian communism versus Western
capitalism or monopoly capitalism. They believe the synthesis is now emerging the technocratic global
order of Klausen Company, that is, the synthesis, that is the proto
one world government that Rakovsky said would emerge out of the postwar order. So
if you want to get access to that, you can sign up for Richard's
course at the link right there. Richard is there in the chat. Shout
out to my boy Richard. Head on over to that link, and you're
gonna have to complete that obstacle course, right that's just to make sure that
you're serious about this and serious about the information. It shouldn't take too long,
and then you can move on to talking with somebody over there about pricing
if you're interested in that. Now, my course that I taught is also
very relevant, and that is the history Western philosophy, because in the first
few minutes we stepped into we dove into a little bit of pre Socratic philosophy.
We talked a little bit about how Heraclitus is crucial for Hegel and in
my full lectures you can get access to that. We go much deeper into
each of the Presocratic figures, deconstructing all of their system and totality, and
you can get that at this link right here, which is the Autonomy Agora
Marketplace. Head on over there right now and read that. Let's see we
got some super jest. Now people are asking, what about Lennon's empirical critic
empirical criticism, Yes, I have that pulled up materialism imperio criticism. What
about objective truth? Doesn't Lennon say believes an objective truth. We're gonna get
into this in the part two as we dive deeper into Marxism. So this
is a half and half. Today's talk is the first part free if you
want the second part for paid subscribers, that will be available at the show
after this goes up in a couple of days, and I usually make the
part twos for people a day or two after, sometimes three or four days,
depending upon how busy I am. And you can get access to that
by subscribing to the website at Jason Elis dot com or by subscribing over at
rock Finn. It's another great way to get access to a lot of that
material as well. Rockfin is great because it's a free speech based platform which
allows you to subscribe to everybody under the paid option, So there's a lot
of free content, but everybody's paid content is accessible to everybody who subscribes to
rock Finn. So heading over to Rock Fin and subscribe to all of our
buddies over there. We've got heavyweights, Richard Grove, best geopolitical podcast out
there bar none at Grand Theft World right here, So heading over to that
link in the show or in the chat right here, you can subscribe to
Richard. But look, it's not just Richard. Look who else is over
there. You've got Jimmy dor You've got Horror Viette Gee Politics and Empire,
great podcast. You've got Jamie Hantchell you might have heard of her. You've
got our buddy Burmas. You've got our buddy Sam Tripoli. You've got Eddie
Bravo, you've got Unlimited Hangout. You've got all kinds of people over there.
Isaac Bishopt right, all of our buddies are over there at Rockfin as
well. So be sure and subscribe to Rockfin. Keep in mind, if
you want to feed your brain, Sunday is when Richard does Grand Theft World,
and Grand Theft World is a feast of information. It goes for seven
hours, not just this right here, but look at this six hours and
fifty ten minutes. Last week, Satan summons his allegiance, right, don't
you want access to all this, well, head on over to rock Fan
and you can get access to that and look for grantaf World tonight when Rich
will be doing that. All right, let's go to the super chats.
Now, wait a minute, what am I doing? I can't even I
can't even think. By the way, I did find the thing I mentioned
on last night's show where I was trying to think of the article about how
espionage related to the Himalayas, remember that, and I'm trying to find Mark's
article on that because it's a great article on that over here at Espionage Archive.
This one is relevant too for Bolshevik occultism. So this is not the
article I'm looking for, but relevant for today's discussion Bolshevik occultism. See that
art there, great article that Mark translated, and I'll put the link here
for you guys for that one. But it's not just bolshevikar cultism. They're
what I'm looking for is so there's a there's a great story about the czar
sending Buddhist monks as spies, and that's what everybody did at that time for
that region, right, this is what this explains Himmler's mission to the Himalayas.
Right, it wasn't just esoteric jibber jabber. It was also geostrategic espionage
stuff. Right, Hence why here it is the Great Game and Tibet found
it. This is a great article if you haven't read. It gets into
the Tsar and Czarist espionage against the West and why Tibet is this key region
and why the CIA had such an interest in Tibet during the Cold War.
And I would argue even to today right Free Tibet, as we saw in
night Stream, was a CIA funded movie or a funded operation, and also
ties into why tiny mustache Man wanted to get the Dali Lama on his side.
So if you don't know about that, there's a old history too,
tiny mustache Man trying to basically use and get that dude on his side.
The dolly lamo All right, Gollum go home, sends ten dollars and says
nothing, thank you Galum zero double o Honeybee ten dollars, says nothing,
thank you double o Huneybee. Shout out to our buddy a C. Glad
to see him back in the chat, Glad to see him back on Twitter,
even though I guess he got sick of Twitter. Shout out to a
C. By the way, A C. I did bring a lot of
my books when I moved that you sent me, so I do intend to
get to those eventually. Ali out and I four dollars. I'm broke,
but I wanted to say thank you for finding this good fight. I appreciate
all your work. Thank you much appreciated. Epville five dollars. Thank you
so much. Ep bone Man five thirty eight five dollars. If the trinity
is a Hegelian thesis antithesis synthesis, Hegel's trinity is contrasting the representation of objective
truth. What can be said about the geometry of stars with right side up
triangles overlaid with upside down triangles? Is this an antipolarity refutation of the same.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but I think you're talking
about the pictures that doctor McGee says. What you're talking about this picture on
the front right of the book, where it's Hegel's stars. So I think
I'm not understanding your question, but I think the drawing is that Hagel believes
that thesis antithesis synthesis is constantly producing the movement of all reality to pure spirit.
So as the electric transient transpires throughout all history, all history and every
action within history is part of the dialectical process. This is the thesis,
antithesis, synthesis move everything, every event is moving in that direction, and
eventually all of the triangles will coalesce into the pure synthesis of pure spirit,
when all reality will be pure spirit. That's that's Hegel's mystical monastic metaphysic there.
So that's what I think the symbols mean here. I don't know what
all his little stars mean. I mean, the circle is the that's the
vishop dot right, that's the monad, the circle and the dot. But
as to what every little symbol is meant there by Hagel, I don't know.
I think it's just trying to encapsulate polarities male and female, right,
That achieves the synthesis of the child. I think that's what is probably meant.
The drawing storm, the cat ten dollars. Do you think there's an
platonic symbolism in Halo with the rings in Space and the Covenant's Great Journey.
I haven't played Halo since I was in my twenties, so I don't really
remember a lot of the storyline. I know they have like a religious covenant,
there's heretics and stuff like that. So it certainly borrows from probably Christian
ideology and symbolism, but I don't know if it borrows anything directly from Platonism
Doff, forty five eighty ten dollars. Can you flesh out more specifically the
context of Lenin's writings, why he's contradicting the case of objectivity and the rest
of his views. Yeah, that's going to relate to what we're going to
talk about an hour or two, because here is the chapter in chapter four
of the book where he talks about objective truth, and I'm going to argue
that when he gets down to what he defines as pure sensation, the gospel
is sense data. None of this are none of this proved the thesis that
he has. So he understands that crude materialism is self refuting and silly where
he talks about Ernst Mock and people like this, right, But his answer,
his solution is not enough. It doesn't work given that he's also a
material He's in the same box. All materialists are in the same box.
So that's my critique, but we're going to get into more of that in
part two when we analyze this chapter from Lennon. But thank you for that
super chat bon Jovi bond Jovi nineteen twelve fifty dollars. Thank you, bond
Jovi. That's a cool name. Biggest super chat winner of the night.
Again. If you want the full show, head on over to my website
or to my rock fin and subscribe for paywall access to the full talk in
the next couple of days. Appreciate those super chats, and also want to
remind you that we have the show sponsor, Chalk dot com. If you
want to get access to the best supplements out there, you want to head
on over to Chalk. Chalk is the best red pill based company when it
comes to supplementation, to getting your health squared away, and there's no better
way to do that than through Chalk dot Com. Chalk offers the best adaptagens.
I don't know why my web Internet's frozen. It's not coming up for
some reason, but it's choq dot com And if you go to this show
description you'll see the links there for Chalk. You can get access to the
Sheila Jit you can get access to the let me pull it up this way.
Yep, be sure and get it from chalk dot com though, because
you get a great discount. If you head on over to chalk dot com,
there's the Daily. You'll see that they have a variety of options there.
Daily is great for nutrient deficiency, great for overall supplementation. It does
help boost testosterone. Daily is the only product, by the way they have
that is just four men. All the other products are for men or women.
Daily however, is just four men, and it does help with boosting
testosterone. I also recommend especially the Tonkata Lie. The Tonkata Lie is probably
the best when it comes to absolutely boosting testosterone. That's the Male Vitality Stacks.
So if you're head on over to chalk dot com right now, you
can knock off about half of that cost right there with the fifty percent off
by using the promo code J fifty that's Joy five zero. And if you
want to set up recurring subscriptions, you can do that through using the promocode
J five three Life. That's J five three Life. And check out that
Male Vitality stite. They also have female Vitality Stacks as well. So it's
also good for regulating hormones, for balancing out, you know, you know,
basically calming you down if you're one of those ladies that has to deal
with hormone imbalances or you want mental focus and clarity. This is a great
bundle right here for ladies the Ashwell Gone to the Sheila Jo and the Irish
Moss. You know, Jamie takes these all the time. She's a big
fan of those. So heading over to chalk dot com use the promo coup
J fifty or the bromo cub J five three life to get fifty three percent
off all recurring subscriptions. Guess what I've also got awesome cool news Our next
book club book with our buddy Frank. Remember how we did Brave New World.
We did every chapter with Frank and Brave New World. Remember that there's
a lot of work, but it was a lot of fun. You can
get access to that full five hour course that Frank and I did. It's
basically a literary course through Brave New World over at my member section. I
think Frank has it also next up Monday night. It starts me and Frank.
Guess what we're doing book club. Will you bring this to me?
Now? Why you want to bring this
to me? Now? We're gonna do it. We're doing it. You
got it. Since I've been having some of the great discussions with Sammy the
Bull Gravano, the most famous living gangster today, great book Mafia Dynasty have
been reading by John Davis gets into the history of the Gambinos all the way
up to entire chapters about Sammy the Bull. What better book for Frank and
I to do than The Godfather? Of course, everybody I'm sure has seen
the movie. However, it is an amazing literary achievement as a book.
So look for that Monday night. Frank and I will be doing the first
four chapters, so if you want to join us, I think that's a
Frank's member section, but it will also be available to my member's section as
well. So otherwise, everybody, have a great Sunday, and also check
out Richard's show tonight. Grantap Roll