Speaker 1: Recent live event in Austin. It went great. Hopefully everybody
Speaker 1: can hear me right, there's no stupid videos playing. It's
Speaker 1: the I don't even know where I am. I'm so tired.
Speaker 1: I can't even think does this sound good? Should be?
Speaker 1: We always get complaints from the Peanut gallery about the
Speaker 1: sound looking fresh. I don't feel fresh. I feel like
Speaker 1: I'm on my man period because I am so I
Speaker 1: don't feel like a fresh lady running through the fields.
Speaker 1: As we walk through fields of gold. You know me?
Speaker 2: You know lesson.
Speaker 1: Hun he That was my impression of soft sting. That
Speaker 1: wasn't sting. That was soft sting. That was stubby, like
Speaker 1: a sting you get stung with a pointy thing. That
Speaker 1: was getting stung with a butter knife. That was soft sting.
Speaker 1: That was stubby, Luna less when pawn. We have so
Speaker 1: many complaints about the sound and my screaming. We're such
Speaker 1: a tribute to Samuel Hyde, the extreme gain scream. Did
Speaker 1: nobody pick up on that? Yourself? Suck, dude, You're the
Speaker 1: worst person to exist, piece of shit.
Speaker 2: Your sound is demonored.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm so tired, dude. Doll sting very it was
Speaker 1: very sensual because I was over there doing that tantra.
Speaker 1: I was doing that tantric meditation with Stang and I
Speaker 1: got stung. Wah wah, wah. What'll we doing today. We're
Speaker 1: going to talking about an aspect of institutional capture, which
Speaker 1: is the capturing of religious institutions. And we're gonna look
Speaker 1: at other institutions and the techniques academically on record admitted
Speaker 1: as to how this was done, and we're gonna we're
Speaker 1: gonna realize that Hey, no surprise, it's the exact same
Speaker 1: thing in the church churches in general. Yeah. Yeah, my
Speaker 1: yoga pants are tingling. I hope your yoga pants are
Speaker 1: tingling right now. If you heard my little.
Speaker 2: Clip clip clip clip clip clip clip.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about that clip clack clap brat. Thank you
Speaker 1: for the Yeah, you guys haven't even seen. There's a
Speaker 1: whole other thing that nobody even knows about. Secret thing
Speaker 1: we did. It'll be out in aprilish. And I was
Speaker 1: in Austin. It was a double fiasco. I can't say
Speaker 1: what the other event is, but it's big, I'll just
Speaker 1: say that, and probably one of the craziest weeks, one
Speaker 1: of the most proud I've ever been in terms of
Speaker 1: dreams coming true, and well, it's not exactly that clause,
Speaker 1: but let's just say that I was dressed up as
Speaker 1: prominent world Bond villain, and let's say that full production involved,
Speaker 1: and let's just say that maybe it'll go out one
Speaker 1: day to a large audience. Let's just say that. And
Speaker 1: we were hitting on all cylinders. I did have one
Speaker 1: thing that didn't go over so well. I thought it
Speaker 1: was funny, but it didn't go over so well. I did.
Speaker 1: I did a I Want to Eat the Bugs in
Speaker 1: the style of Kirk Franklin, and that was a out
Speaker 1: of nowhere at the live event. I thought that was fun.
Speaker 1: Some people liked it. A couple of people were not
Speaker 1: so happy with that, but that's okay. We actually communicate
Speaker 1: those heretics right away anyway. So yeah, we're gonna let's
Speaker 1: get back to the focus on focusing on the topic.
Speaker 1: Like I said, forgive me, I'm super tired. I'll probably
Speaker 1: be just like zoning out, wandering off mentally into who
Speaker 1: knows what. But there's just so much happening, it's crazy.
Speaker 1: So we want to understand institutional capture because it's a
Speaker 1: big element that explains what's going on in the world
Speaker 1: of religion. And when we look the other worlds of society, economics, banking, corporations, businessman,
Speaker 1: what other society that's academia, These areas of society, they
Speaker 1: have tentacles of the power structure in them. Surely nobody
Speaker 1: finds that controversial. But the idea that there would be
Speaker 1: a sort of coordinated manipulation of institutions for various purposes,
Speaker 1: which is a historical fact, still seems lost in a
Speaker 1: lot of people. And this is partly what keeps people
Speaker 1: in the magic circle, the box within the over to window.
Speaker 1: You can never be outside of the shifting moving over
Speaker 1: to window. Keep you in that magic circle, and you'll
Speaker 1: never get anywhere or figure anything out because you're always
Speaker 1: bouncing around within the little magic circle as a pomp
Speaker 1: back and forth, meaning and you never understand things outside
Speaker 1: of at the metal level what's really going on, so
Speaker 1: to speak. So that's what we try to do here
Speaker 1: is give the big picture, the cross disciplinary meta analysis,
Speaker 1: and we do that by looking in a hopefully scholarly
Speaker 1: and academic way to degree the literature on the subjects.
Speaker 1: Sometimes that includes very technical academic literature, sometimes it includes
Speaker 1: more mainstream pop analyzes. And sometimes that includes more of
Speaker 1: the fringe theoretical. I always try to make it clear
Speaker 1: which we're pulling from. Tonight. We're mainly going to be
Speaker 1: pulling from the academic realm, some of the intelligence analysis realm,
Speaker 1: and a little bit of the theory and speculation realm,
Speaker 1: but not much of that. Tonight is pretty much going
Speaker 1: to be fact fact fact, the fact, the fact that back,
Speaker 1: that fact that back. Now, if you think about ancient empires,
Speaker 1: we still haven't there's so many books we want to
Speaker 1: get to. Here I apologize that we haven't even gotten
Speaker 1: to all the books if we want to get to
Speaker 1: We've got a couple of great clips we're going to
Speaker 1: look at that illustrate recent clips that I've seen that
Speaker 1: illustrate our point in other areas. So we got one
Speaker 1: that's going to deal with journalism and intelligence. Hopefully you
Speaker 1: know about Mockingbird right. And by the way, when we
Speaker 1: do the Gladio text, which I'm progressing through, this is
Speaker 1: not the part too. If you signed up recently, guys,
Speaker 1: don't be afraid. Don't be afraid. You will still get
Speaker 1: the part two. No, that's not it. Where's the big me,
Speaker 1: make me big baby? There we go, you will still
Speaker 1: get the part two to this and Vatican spies, but
Speaker 1: you know of conspies. And these two texts are great
Speaker 1: companions because this is written by a neo Conish cold
Speaker 1: warrior pro Vatican pro John Pault. Second, and this is
Speaker 1: written by an FBI Catholic consultant to the FBI who
Speaker 1: is very critical of Rome from a just an objective
Speaker 1: critical standpoint, so critical Gladio. But this guy is the
Speaker 1: opposite side of the Cold War fence. But the admissions
Speaker 1: between these two approaches, you'll see, this helps us see
Speaker 1: things outside of the dialectic. You see, you see what
Speaker 1: we're doing here. So to read these two together at
Speaker 1: the same time is amazing for the confirmation that we
Speaker 1: get from two different perspectives. Right, we want to understand
Speaker 1: the critical, more liberal minded perspective of the Cold War,
Speaker 1: and we want to understand that neo conservative, so called
Speaker 1: right wing capitalist to you know, CIA, cold warrior perspective,
Speaker 1: because as you know, we see both of these as
Speaker 1: kind of a long term game. But these are for
Speaker 1: the technocracy is that's rolling out now, which couldn't have
Speaker 1: happened without the Cold War. But both of these texts
Speaker 1: are very important for the notion of institutional capture and
Speaker 1: that I've just seen that so profoundly in this text,
Speaker 1: and I mean every chapter in this book is just like,
Speaker 1: holy crap, dude, and I mean holy crap, because it
Speaker 1: literally is the alliance between Vaticans, CIA and MAKA. Now
Speaker 1: all the tradcats get mad. We're not picking on tradcats
Speaker 1: because the point of tonight's discussion is that this same
Speaker 1: issue is in the Orthodox world. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: And our great sponsor, we have two sponsors, not just
Speaker 1: chalk dot Com, but also the beloved it and lovely
Speaker 1: Richard Grove, as you guys know, and you know Richard
Speaker 1: brought up I don't know if Richard has talked about
Speaker 1: this text. We did an analysis of this book, and
Speaker 1: this book is relevant for tonight because this is about
Speaker 1: anthropology dorks being used by intelligence in the CIA and
Speaker 1: the studying of ethnography for the weaponization of social engineering
Speaker 1: psyops intelligence operations. So this is more like a specific
Speaker 1: domain of studies, right, Margaret and me Gregory Bates and
Speaker 1: you know, these anthropologists who are really just academics huffing
Speaker 1: their own toots who serve the neoliberal world Order establishment
Speaker 1: and that ties in great with this book that Richard
Speaker 1: is always recommending. I got it many years ago. I've
Speaker 1: not delved into this, but I plan into just because
Speaker 1: you know, Richard has over at Grant Theft World has
Speaker 1: given this so many props. I know what it's about.
Speaker 1: I read other texts to deal with this, and so
Speaker 1: we'll be looking at Cloak and Gown eventually by Robin Winks,
Speaker 1: which is the co opting of spies in academic garb robes.
Speaker 1: And if you guys don't know, we did a podcast
Speaker 1: I did. I did a talk year ago Spies Investments,
Speaker 1: hinting at getting at this idea of Cloak and Gown. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, these are mainline academic texts. These aren't conspiracy texts.
Speaker 1: These are by professors. This is written by professor David Price.
Speaker 1: Pretty much all of these books that we deal with
Speaker 1: are written by professors. So and then separate to this,
Speaker 1: but also does tie into it. Yeah, I know about
Speaker 1: the various books, I just haven't got around to getting them.
Speaker 1: So people were like, when you gonna get this other book?
Speaker 1: What about this one? Yes, I'm aware of the Daniel
Speaker 1: Ganzer book NATO's Secret armies, so it did arrive. You
Speaker 1: should see my reading table. It's like this giant. It's
Speaker 1: like up to this, up to the roof, the roof,
Speaker 1: the roof, the roof is on fire because of all
Speaker 1: the books. It's a reading hat. It's a fire, has
Speaker 1: all the books stacked up. So we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: get very high four fifty one up in here. And
Speaker 1: as you guys know, the most important text on this topic,
Speaker 1: sort of the Bible of this topic, is none other
Speaker 1: than John Courtney Murray Time Life Magazine American Proposal, which
Speaker 1: is essentially the key, it's the master key to understanding
Speaker 1: that Vatican Two, the liberalization of Rome, Catholicism or are
Speaker 1: not solely due to audio illogical and theological dorks sitting
Speaker 1: around in arguingent theology. Rather powerful, powerful interests with unlimited
Speaker 1: Fiat money pouring their wealth, their power, their influence into
Speaker 1: religious institutions of the seminaries change the face of these institutions.
Speaker 1: Thus the you could say, long march through the institutions. However, everyone,
Speaker 1: especially all the Cold Warriors, especially the Tracats boomers, they
Speaker 1: still think this is commis. It's just an element of COMMI, right,
Speaker 1: it's not commies. It's a little element of commis, but
Speaker 1: it's ultimately monopoly capital behind Fabian socialists and these Fabians
Speaker 1: as we know one hundred years ago, what did we
Speaker 1: see utilize religious institutions? Russell interested in web Let's use
Speaker 1: Islam as a way to transform the UK that then
Speaker 1: expanded to the transformation of Europe. You understand. So it's
Speaker 1: a geopolitical move fostered by Cambridge Oxford academics through the
Speaker 1: funding that came through LSC London School of Economics and
Speaker 1: the Milliner Fabian circles. Therefore, once again we can see
Speaker 1: with the religious institution of Islam, this is the old
Speaker 1: British strategy. And we've lectured through multiple texts Mark Curtis's
Speaker 1: Secret Affairs, Robert Dreyfuss's Devil's Game. I mean, there's just
Speaker 1: so many of these where we Gould and fifth Year Olds,
Speaker 1: Invisible Empire, all prominent historical geopolitical texts that deal with
Speaker 1: the British imperial strategy of using Islam. Another text that
Speaker 1: deals with this that's kind of overlooked is Lost Hegemon.
Speaker 1: My Ingdall and Lost Hegemon is a great segue into
Speaker 1: this topic because ingdol in. This book also gets into
Speaker 1: the usage of evangelicals, evangelicals and Islamic networks such as
Speaker 1: the FETA Gulian network. So you know about the Gulian network.
Speaker 1: You know about the sitting up the setting up of
Speaker 1: many many radical Islamic groups through the Muslim Brotherhood, which
Speaker 1: has essentially always been an adjacent to and an attache
Speaker 1: of British intelligence. And this and the sort of the
Speaker 1: setting up of you know, the Sykes Pico All of
Speaker 1: that was in part done through religious manipulation. Now that
Speaker 1: was it played a role. It wasn't everything, but it
Speaker 1: played a role. And part of that was because British
Speaker 1: Empire wanted to uh control Mecca, to try to control Islam.
Speaker 1: And here you can see people are like the table,
Speaker 1: it's a book. We have books, check them out the library,
Speaker 1: tiny mustache men with who the Grand Emom who was?
Speaker 1: Of course British intelligence. Not even hard to figure that out.
Speaker 1: It's pretty obvious. This is just an example, right uh.
Speaker 1: And you know, you could look at the Galen network
Speaker 1: Rhinhard Galen. You could look at that as a death
Speaker 1: cult network and you can see some of that going
Speaker 1: on in over in uk R A, I, n E.
Speaker 1: Some of those same networks A Z O V. Those
Speaker 1: are holdovers of the Galen and this that makes sense.
Speaker 1: So we will be getting a way into a lot
Speaker 1: more depth in the next coming week because now that
Speaker 1: I'm back, I'm going to be rested up and well,
Speaker 1: I'll be ready to do the part two. I know
Speaker 1: we're behind on this, so people don't freak out. We're
Speaker 1: going to get to the part two because we had
Speaker 1: a really good I think, response to the last video
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, twenty two thousand on that Jesuits oss
Speaker 1: Marian apparitions discussion. Remember that, So that's what's coming up.
Speaker 1: And then don't forget either that there's also good insights
Speaker 1: into religious manipulation in Ingdoll's classic Full Spectrum Dominance. Right,
Speaker 1: we have the CIA usage of the Dalai Lama on record,
Speaker 1: the Free Tibet Movement CIA operation, and that again tied
Speaker 1: into religion, and we've caught for a long time, as
Speaker 1: you guys know, the usage of religious cults, Joe's Witnesses, Scientology,
Speaker 1: those and evangelical groups. Hopefully, hopefully we can still find
Speaker 1: that hostfully, we can still find that excellent classic from
Speaker 1: Mark Hackard. I think it's still on here. Let's see.
Speaker 1: So if you've never heard this interview and there's a
Speaker 1: old nice little tom Kum laughing there, that's a good one.
Speaker 1: That's my article. It's my old classics. Let's see where
Speaker 1: is Mark's attack of the cults? That's his essay. I
Speaker 1: don't even know if it's still there, but we've covered
Speaker 1: this because that gets into evangelical groups being used as fronts.
Speaker 1: Right here it is and this shouldn't come as any surprise.
Speaker 1: This is yeah, this is a great essay. If you
Speaker 1: never read this or ma needs to read this shows
Speaker 1: the methodology, methodology, and tactics of Western intelligence to use
Speaker 1: retarto religious groups.
Speaker 3: Like Sunday Ada Laja. My name is Sunda Ada Laja.
Speaker 3: Why are you gay? Who are you? You are gay?
Speaker 3: Why are you gay? My good friend is a Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: Also have a friend Nigerian prince will send you one
Speaker 1: million bit going for five dollars. You'll aren't even seeing this.
Speaker 1: This dude, remember this guy, this guy right, sunday ad Laja. Well,
Speaker 1: this is an intelligence from if you can't figure that out,
Speaker 1: and this, of course is what led to the banning
Speaker 1: of Joe's witnesses, for example in Rashia over the last
Speaker 1: few years, as well as scientology. But you'll notice that
Speaker 1: these evangelical groups were in we're active in the Ukraine
Speaker 1: pushing Ukrainian nationalism, even the evangelical groups. You see this,
Speaker 1: and why is that? Well, that's because they're adjacent to
Speaker 1: or under Uncle Sam. Can you not figure that out?
Speaker 1: The State Department? You don't know this, And then we
Speaker 1: gotta find that SPZH article. This is what it's about
Speaker 1: in the long run. We'll get to that in a minute.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna talk about this right now, but can
Speaker 1: you guys see that right there? Yeah? There we go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So that's what we're looking at in the long run,
Speaker 1: particularly when it comes to not just Rome, but the
Speaker 1: plans for the we'll call it the deep Religious States,
Speaker 1: so to speak, for where they want to take Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: and Rome. You can see it symbolized here very clearly.
Speaker 1: And that plays into what goes on in the US
Speaker 1: in terms of religious engineering and subversion. So humanism is
Speaker 1: really a tool, does that make sense right? For geopolitical power.
Speaker 1: It's not ultimately about religious theology. It only cares about
Speaker 1: religious theology insofar as it's useful to the establishment as
Speaker 1: a tool of social engineering. And I think our audience,
Speaker 1: you know, we're not a stranger to this idea if
Speaker 1: we just think about church history. So maybe you don't
Speaker 1: know anything about geopolitics. That's fine, you don't know about geopolitics,
Speaker 1: but if we do want to have discernment in our age,
Speaker 1: then maybe you should. Maybe it's worth knowing about because
Speaker 1: if we think back to the earliest days of the Church,
Speaker 1: didn't we have Aryan emperors. Didn't they want to change
Speaker 1: the church theology? Well, sure, do they just want to
Speaker 1: destroy the church? No, they wanted to change the church,
Speaker 1: change the theology. Why because to arian or semi arian emperors,
Speaker 1: Aryan theology allows the state to be deified. And if
Speaker 1: you work your way up to Byzantine theology to the
Speaker 1: iconic class controversy, the same situation occurs where you don't
Speaker 1: have images in the iconoclast worldview of anything theological, but
Speaker 1: you do have the images of the emperor. It's like
Speaker 1: the only valid image. So iconoclasm is an imperial heresy
Speaker 1: and it was imposed by heterodox emperors to back up
Speaker 1: heterodox theology. So you better believe that geopolitics manifests the
Speaker 1: metaphysical and theological presubpositions. Of course it does. And if
Speaker 1: you don't think that, then you're being ahistorical and you're
Speaker 1: denying your own Orthodox history of the businessing Empire and
Speaker 1: the splits with the West. Right, So what happens in
Speaker 1: the Carolinians when the Carolinians adopt, you know, Augustinian and
Speaker 1: Neoplatonic theology. This plays itself out in a certain quest
Speaker 1: that Charlemagne has to conquer and change the creed of
Speaker 1: Orthodox Leans to now include the Philly Oquay. And as
Speaker 1: we know, the Pope at that time, at the time
Speaker 1: of the Seventh Council actually rejected it. And Charlemagne and
Speaker 1: his Carolinian court theologians actually rejected the Seventh Council. Right,
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics, if you're ignorant of that, I'm sorry. It's
Speaker 1: not my fault. That's facts that submitted history. You can read.
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic historians though, now admit all this. So so
Speaker 1: we can't unfortunately separate geopolitics from the spiritual. A lot
Speaker 1: of people like to do this and pretend that they're
Speaker 1: very spiritual and they're very sophisticated because they don't have
Speaker 1: to talk about all this, and they're not worried about
Speaker 1: all this. And ironically, a lot of the people who
Speaker 1: take that approach have actually sided with the EP and
Speaker 1: made serious mistakes, which makes absolutely no sense, because of
Speaker 1: course the EP formerly recognized Metropolitan Newfree on the books.
Speaker 1: The other patriarch is still recognized Metropolitan New Free, but
Speaker 1: now because the State Department, they're forced through geopolitical power
Speaker 1: to reject and accept the fake, made up CIA church
Speaker 1: in the Ukraine. And we had a bit of a
Speaker 1: disagreement this week with Jesse over at Ortho Christian because
Speaker 1: they published a terrible article denying quote conspiracy theories and
Speaker 1: saying that you're a bad person if you talk about
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories. And the article doesn't even make any it's
Speaker 1: terribly written by this like want to be pietous, dude, right, Look,
Speaker 1: so let's look at how ridiculous this article is over
Speaker 1: at Ortho Christian. And I think that the only reason
Speaker 1: I really I don't really care that they. I don't
Speaker 1: follow the site anymore. I quit falling in a while back.
Speaker 1: The only reason I paid attention to this because it
Speaker 1: popped up and it's relevant to what we talk about
Speaker 1: and it's it's just odd to me that I have
Speaker 1: no idea who Steven Simpson is. But this article argues
Speaker 1: that one time there was a guy who was a
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic bishop who started having visions of prophecies. Okay,
Speaker 1: I has nothing to do with and he prophesied the
Speaker 1: end of the world, and he was a fraud, and
Speaker 1: so therefore you shouldn't be into conspiracy theories. Literally, like
Speaker 1: the worst, the stupidest argumentation I've ever seen in an article.
Speaker 1: Number one, that's a con man. And so a con
Speaker 1: man talking about end times delusions, that's not a That
Speaker 1: doesn't even fit with a conspiracy theorist. That's not what
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theorist is different from an end times delusional,
Speaker 1: prelass based pseudo prophet. Okay. And so this guy goes
Speaker 1: on to argue that, oh and by the way, look
Speaker 1: at my quotes from the Saints, because it says, don't
Speaker 1: be afraid of anything or anyone. There's nothing new under
Speaker 1: the sun. Nobody knows anything. And then he miss quotes
Speaker 1: Isaiah eleven. Do not say a conspiracy a conspiracy? These
Speaker 1: people call a conspiracy. What is not a conspiracy? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with the present situation of
Speaker 1: the world where every day we're dealing with geopolitical espionage
Speaker 1: and conspiracy on a global scale. And his own website,
Speaker 1: and Jesse is of course the one who himself is
Speaker 1: the curator of the content. He's the one that puts
Speaker 1: up the articles. But then he says he doesn't know
Speaker 1: who put up this article, and he says, go email
Speaker 1: somebody else to cover this article about conspiracy there is
Speaker 1: because he doesn't have but he's the one that controls
Speaker 1: the content. And so we're going to look at some
Speaker 1: of their openly espionage based conspiracy articles, which we have
Speaker 1: cited probably hundreds of times in the last three or
Speaker 1: four years. And I think that, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what the motivations of Worthow Christian are. I don't
Speaker 1: have any personal disagreements with him, but it plays into
Speaker 1: what we're getting into because there's so much opposition that
Speaker 1: is basically mounting, and that's what we want to talk
Speaker 1: about tonight, right So remember uh, And that's because there
Speaker 1: is there is a you know, amounting ecclesial now opposition
Speaker 1: to what we do over at my site, on my channel,
Speaker 1: what we talk about, what we're prom because we talk
Speaker 1: about real stuff, right, and uh, A lot of people
Speaker 1: can't handle this stuff. A lot of people, you know,
Speaker 1: they just they'd rather see me as the problem. Uh.
Speaker 1: Am I the one that is involved in splitting the
Speaker 1: church in Ukraine? Am I the one that's siding with
Speaker 1: the ep Am? I the one that I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: literally like one of the few people out here promoting
Speaker 1: the very thing that your site promotes. But you know,
Speaker 1: this week it's all about counter signaling conspiracy theorist counter
Speaker 1: signaling me, and nobody ever even says what my conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories are. Now, if I'm talking about something that's a theory,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. But the irony is that everybody on
Speaker 1: my side of this knows that we focus on the tech,
Speaker 1: the academic texts, and the literature around this topic. And
Speaker 1: if we speculate on something, I'll say I'm speculating. So
Speaker 1: I don't know who else gives you level headed analysis
Speaker 1: like this. But notice that so the new article here
Speaker 1: over here says against conspiracy theorists. And let me give
Speaker 1: you a random four or five quote minds of verses
Speaker 1: that have nothing to do with geopolitics, Because if you
Speaker 1: don't know We actually did a video years ago about
Speaker 1: all the places in scripture where there are conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Did you know the Bible talks often about conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Did you know that they conspired to kill the king
Speaker 1: and judges by an assassin? Right? Did you know that
Speaker 1: Caleb and Joshua sent out the spies? I mean, does
Speaker 1: anybody know any of this stuff? Or do we just
Speaker 1: want to sit around and talk about how I'm a
Speaker 1: bad person? Right? Oh no, it's my fault. I'm a
Speaker 1: bad person. Now. I never expected to have this kind
Speaker 1: of an audience in terms of the religious domain. It happened,
Speaker 1: thank you, and it is what it is. So and again,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't tell people. I don't tell people
Speaker 1: what to do spiritually. I'm not your spiritual father. I
Speaker 1: gotta of course, this is the videos, of course hidden,
Speaker 1: so I have to come over here and look for it.
Speaker 1: The biblical view of conspiracies. Why can I not find it?
Speaker 1: You have to type it exactly right here we go.
Speaker 1: Our conspiracy is rational or conspiracy is biblical? Okay, So
Speaker 1: you can go watch this video to see the many references.
Speaker 1: I did a whole video on all the places in
Speaker 1: divine revelation where we do have an affirmation of conspiracies.
Speaker 1: And again, if you don't like the word conspiracies, if
Speaker 1: you bought into the weaponizing of the term conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: which comes out of the JFK drama to weaponize those
Speaker 1: who would question the official narratives, then you can use
Speaker 1: the term espionage or do you think that espionage doesn't exist? Now,
Speaker 1: if it does exist, then why am I bad to
Speaker 1: person for talking about the very thing that these websites
Speaker 1: themselves talk about? Costidw Ukraine hierarch Awards, former CIA head
Speaker 1: for supporting the push for the Ukrainian National Church. So
Speaker 1: here you have an emission from Orthochristian that there is
Speaker 1: a collusion there with Dena Senko or whatever's name is
Speaker 1: the defract goober meeting with Jack Divine, former acting director
Speaker 1: of the CIA, in town to promote his new book.
Speaker 1: And of course they're all best friends. They love each other.
Speaker 1: Because this is a geopolitical created schism, and it's not
Speaker 1: hard to figure that out, very simple. Here's another lengthy
Speaker 1: article which I've shared for many I've shared many times
Speaker 1: about the usage of schismatic groups by the US power structure.
Speaker 1: Here's another one Ukrainian usbods, you congratulate Ukrainians with the
Speaker 1: creation of a new church over at Ortho Christian. So
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to figure out, like when you post
Speaker 1: your conspiracy theories and your espionage essays, which I've shared
Speaker 1: for many, many years, but now you're saying, no, you're
Speaker 1: against conspiracy theories, so maybe you need to curate your
Speaker 1: content a little better. And then we have Fordham University's
Speaker 1: Orthodox Center receives grant to study as Skittles, also over
Speaker 1: at Ortho Christian. Now we've talked about this. Is this
Speaker 1: not a conspiring through money and influence to change the
Speaker 1: theological moral teaching of the churches. Of course it does.
Speaker 1: And anyone acting like this doesn't exist is either a
Speaker 1: completely naive boomer Docks person who's out to lunch, or
Speaker 1: they're malicious and they're lying to you. Because and the
Speaker 1: younger people are, the more difficult it is to pull
Speaker 1: the stupid ruse over because the people that are like
Speaker 1: Boomer Docks, they don't realize that people thirty and under
Speaker 1: can figure this out within five minutes on the Internet. Okay,
Speaker 1: not everybody's dumb, right, People thirty and under know how
Speaker 1: to use search engines and know how to find foundations,
Speaker 1: grants and funding, and it's not working. We have an
Speaker 1: audience bigger than ancient faith radius that they can't figure
Speaker 1: out that it's not just me or some like strange
Speaker 1: people on the internet are gathering audiences. Yeah, there's some
Speaker 1: dummies gathering audiences that are immature and stupid. But like
Speaker 1: we're showing actual documents and information here, and the audience
Speaker 1: who isn't one hundred IQ or below can figure this out.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to figure out. And you can. You
Speaker 1: can talk all day long about how bad a person
Speaker 1: I am, and I'll admit, Okay, yeah I'm a bad person. Okay,
Speaker 1: but does that change any of what we're talking about? Okay,
Speaker 1: I know I've got moral flaws. Oh I'm the worst
Speaker 1: person I know. But in actuality, what it is is
Speaker 1: that you know, just like with Danic from a few
Speaker 1: years ago, it's the same problem resurfacing. These people have
Speaker 1: other masters and they see anyone that's not like ancient
Speaker 1: faith radio controlled as a threat because they can't control
Speaker 1: the things that we talk about, the things that we say.
Speaker 1: And so then now it's kind of shifted. Things are
Speaker 1: going into a new kind of wild situation where we're
Speaker 1: going to have not just sort of infiltration, but the
Speaker 1: attacks are going to ramp up. But it's not going
Speaker 1: to work because these people are so out of touch
Speaker 1: they don't they're literally having conferences at OCA churches and
Speaker 1: meetings on how to deal with and how to avoid me.
Speaker 1: And I don't care because like anybody that would be
Speaker 1: swayed by that and wants to go into the domain
Speaker 1: of ecumenism is not going to like and not going
Speaker 1: to be in our spheres anyway. And nobody wants to
Speaker 1: convert to Orthodoxy to go back to Rome h. But
Speaker 1: you have certain accuminous minded bishops and people within the OCA,
Speaker 1: for example, who do want to eventually go back to Rome.
Speaker 1: And so it's part of a longer agenda. It's very
Speaker 1: easy to figure this out where the OCA will go
Speaker 1: under the EP and the EP will go back to Rome.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't it's not a big deal in that
Speaker 1: it's not going to hurt or destroy what what we
Speaker 1: do over here or for our from our side, because
Speaker 1: any of the people that want to go do that
Speaker 1: are are are it's sifting wheat from chaff. Let them go, right,
Speaker 1: I mean you got or you got OCA bishops calling
Speaker 1: Origin a saint, okay. So I mean these are not
Speaker 1: serious people. People people openly aligned with the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: openly okay. And so they can talk about all day
Speaker 1: along about how bad a person I am, and they
Speaker 1: can use ben Cave and the Aora to try to
Speaker 1: get dirt and do whatever they want. But nobody's gonna
Speaker 1: believe that because those are the same bishops, the same people,
Speaker 1: the same clerics who shut your churches down, threatened you
Speaker 1: and told you had to get stabbes, took money most
Speaker 1: likely for all that, and the same people before all
Speaker 1: that happened who called me evil. Right, So they just
Speaker 1: revealed to everybody these people are joke. They're a joke.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry that that's the reality of how the
Speaker 1: religious world is, but it is so today. What we're
Speaker 1: looking at is why is it this way? Why is Rome?
Speaker 1: Why is orthodox liberal orthodoxy so called? Why is it
Speaker 1: going in this direction? Well, you have to understand that
Speaker 1: from the vantage point of global powers, there is a move,
Speaker 1: a push that's very easy to verify, that wants to
Speaker 1: take these religions and these churches into a new realm
Speaker 1: of being soft power and being forms of NGOs and
Speaker 1: if you don't know what that is, soft powers is
Speaker 1: a form of geopolitical exercising of power that's not overt warfare.
Speaker 1: So you can exercise soft power through culture, through religion,
Speaker 1: TV shows, economics, right, because it's not overt you know,
Speaker 1: straight up kinetic warfare or whatever. Soft power. There's also
Speaker 1: smart power using tech. This kind of stuff not conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: It's international relations, geopolitics one O one. Anybody who goes
Speaker 1: and studies these things that will learn about what soft
Speaker 1: power is. You read the writings of any of the
Speaker 1: geopolitical lead that we cover, they talk about it. But
Speaker 1: a lot of these people, a lot of these hierarchs
Speaker 1: and these kinds of but they're either totally idiots and
Speaker 1: don't know anything about this, or they are essentially part
Speaker 1: of a captured institution. I'm not saying the entire Orthodox
Speaker 1: churches capture. I'm not saying any entire jurisdiction is capture,
Speaker 1: but many of these jurisdictions are being captured. So that's
Speaker 1: just the facts, right. I Mean, you even had some
Speaker 1: of these OCA clerics and bishops telling you to get
Speaker 1: out of their churches if you don't believe in all
Speaker 1: of the stabby, all this stuff get out of the churches.
Speaker 1: One of them even threatened to take people priests to
Speaker 1: court for murder charges if they didn't do the stabby
Speaker 1: is the mass and all of that. So what does
Speaker 1: all this mean? So it has to do with captured institutions,
Speaker 1: and how do we get captured institutions? Well, let's look
Speaker 1: at a few examples of other institutions which will then
Speaker 1: show us the means, methods, and strategies of how this institution,
Speaker 1: namely the church in general in general. And I saw
Speaker 1: you know, I'm going to say that, you know, if
Speaker 1: your OCA bishop or your Greek Orthodox bishop is liberal,
Speaker 1: and you can verify that and check it out. And
Speaker 1: do these people not even realize that people can verify
Speaker 1: this very easily and check this out. Then move to
Speaker 1: another one that is that is solid. Don't give OCA
Speaker 1: people your money. If they're going to put out statements
Speaker 1: and if they're going to put out warning labels about
Speaker 1: me personally, if they're going to put out lists of
Speaker 1: people that you shouldn't read or listen to, that's a
Speaker 1: good thing. That's a good thing because now oh we know,
Speaker 1: like thank you, Now we know to say goodbye to
Speaker 1: you and don't give these people your money. Anybody are
Speaker 1: you if you're giving money to the people who shut
Speaker 1: your churches down and told you to get out of
Speaker 1: the churches. Literally many of them did threaten other priests,
Speaker 1: would try to defract priests then don't go to those
Speaker 1: people's churches, and they can. I'm not under any of
Speaker 1: those people. So they can announce their avoidance lessons all
Speaker 1: day long, but I don't care. It's not going to
Speaker 1: do anything. So let's look an example of a captured institution,
Speaker 1: namely certain media outlets from Ivory Hacker. I think Lord
Speaker 1: V has had her on multiple times, and we all
Speaker 1: know that the bs of this stuff. Anyway, it's like
Speaker 1: there's I mean, these people are openly into what they're into,
Speaker 1: openly promoting what they promote. Uh, I'm somethingbout in the
Speaker 1: religious realm, right, And so we're not having to deal
Speaker 1: with like secret KGB operatives, right, Maybe in the Cold
Speaker 1: War you had to worry about a secret KGB operative
Speaker 1: like you know, like Cohler talks about in his text. Right,
Speaker 1: in Cohler's text, you've got KGB operatives sneaking into the
Speaker 1: church as spies. Getting dirt. That's not our situation because
Speaker 1: we're talking about people who openly talk about total degenerousy
Speaker 1: and things that are not orthodox at all to be pushed.
Speaker 1: And by the way, just because there's a public statement
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there aren't people covertly going against the
Speaker 1: public statement. People do not know what pr is. People
Speaker 1: are so naive. Well they publicly said they don't believe
Speaker 1: in it. Oh okay, well I guess yeah, like I
Speaker 1: guess they don't, right, even though they are also aligning
Speaker 1: themselves with the Democratic Party. And it's no different. It's
Speaker 1: exact same scenario problem that we had with father Damik
Speaker 1: five years ago when he came after us, tried to
Speaker 1: get us ex communicated, all this kind of stuff, right,
Speaker 1: No different, same stuff. It's just that now because the
Speaker 1: audience has grown and because you might think, oh they
Speaker 1: love you, because you know, they don't want people and
Speaker 1: they don't care about young men converting to their churches.
Speaker 1: In fact, a prominent Oca priest that I met and
Speaker 1: talked with years ago said, we don't want young men
Speaker 1: coming to our parish. This is a nightmare. So if
Speaker 1: you're a young guy, as many of you are, this
Speaker 1: is what they actually say about you in the OCA,
Speaker 1: we don't want young men coming to our parish. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about specific parish in the East. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about all people. So your feeling's hurt. Yeah, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are people in the Chat. I'm sure you do
Speaker 1: go to Father Dami's perish and that doesn't make you
Speaker 1: a bad person. I'm not go to you make those
Speaker 1: choices yourself. You can decide, because I'm not actually a
Speaker 1: cult leader, you know, in the Discord all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, all we ever did was direct people to
Speaker 1: their spiritual fathers to make those decisions. But I also
Speaker 1: always told you not to choose your church based on
Speaker 1: anything other than whether you could discern whether you're clergy,
Speaker 1: were solid or not. So if we have multiple clerics
Speaker 1: now publicly saying avoid Jay, avoid anybody in his circles,
Speaker 1: avoiding the priests to associate with him, blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. Uh, they don't get there's no reasoning giving
Speaker 1: other than that if you look at what they are,
Speaker 1: and ben Cabe say, it's because they're not approved in
Speaker 1: an Orthodox So actually I'm approved. So what do you
Speaker 1: mean we have clerics come on all the time. So
Speaker 1: what do you mean it's not approved. Well, what they
Speaker 1: mean is it's not Ancient Faith Radio approved, which Ancient
Speaker 1: Faith Radio has for many years promoted all kinds of
Speaker 1: open lib stuff. And I can also tell you that
Speaker 1: over the many years that we've dealt with these kinds
Speaker 1: of issues, a lot of these people who didn't like
Speaker 1: me or got mad at me at first, then went
Speaker 1: and found out the hard way, and then later came
Speaker 1: to me, Oh, yeah, you were right. These people are nuts,
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry. It's so it's not I didn't make
Speaker 1: it this way in the Orthodox Church or in the
Speaker 1: Orthodox world. And it's not really about personalities. It's about
Speaker 1: who's a problem for ideological pushes, that's it. So I'm
Speaker 1: not under AFR. I don't have to be told by
Speaker 1: any of those people what to say or what to do.
Speaker 1: And you'll notice that what did they do. They pushed
Speaker 1: out all of these people that weren't going along with
Speaker 1: their stances for market shares, and they pushed out good
Speaker 1: people like father John Whiteford and others. And they're so
Speaker 1: boomer they don't even realize that, like they're just running
Speaker 1: off their audience. And you know, all they can say,
Speaker 1: is that we have an audience over here because I'm
Speaker 1: a bad person. Yeah, that's it. So it's just me
Speaker 1: being a bad person. I know, I know, I know
Speaker 1: I'm the worst person. But how is it if I'm
Speaker 1: even if I'm the worst person? Ever, how is it
Speaker 1: that we're so right about all this stuff? How have
Speaker 1: we been so right? Why are we the only person
Speaker 1: talking about institutional capture? Why are we the only person
Speaker 1: talking about institutional subversion? Where are the priests talking about this?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't priests discuss this? No, they're still pretending like it
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. As a lot of these OCA priests commune
Speaker 1: skiddles people openly, and commune people that are identifying as
Speaker 1: different things. So there you go. What was I tell you? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So there you go. Yeah, they pushed out multiple people,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's not just it's not just one
Speaker 1: or two people. If you would hit like and share.
Speaker 1: Let's look at a little bit of Ivory's interview with
Speaker 1: this guy who was at CNN. His book is about
Speaker 1: and they were both on timcasts recently, so talking about
Speaker 1: this this strategy here. So let's listen a little bit
Speaker 1: of this and I'll comment as we go through the
Speaker 1: link to the video is right here. Ivory's video there.
Speaker 1: So let's listen to some.
Speaker 4: Of this For me, I guess by first blowing the
Speaker 4: whistle on CNN and now we have your new book,
Speaker 4: I got to show the audience this was CNN, how sex,
Speaker 4: lies and spies undid the world's worst news network. Congrats
Speaker 4: on this book.
Speaker 5: Hey, much appreciated, Ivory. And that's all you and I
Speaker 5: are doing. We're part of a cool little fraternity and
Speaker 5: we're building it bigger and bigger as we go. Many
Speaker 5: people have come to me saying they watched your story
Speaker 5: just as they watched mine. So thank you for what
Speaker 5: you did as well. I mean, we met that day
Speaker 5: and then we out of nowhere flew to Tim Poole's
Speaker 5: house for his show that night. It was a wild
Speaker 5: whirlwind ride for you as well. But yeah, here we are.
Speaker 5: So let's get the party started right exactly.
Speaker 4: Let's get into what you saw, how compromised CNN was
Speaker 4: before a lot of CNN viewers noticed it was compromised.
Speaker 4: The crazy thing is CNN's ratings have been going down
Speaker 4: their own viewers who used to like them. They're becoming
Speaker 4: too obvious now, So dive into your story and what
Speaker 4: you witnessed on the inside there.
Speaker 5: Sure for the thirty thousand foot view for people that
Speaker 5: maybe just joining us. It was three years ago. But
Speaker 5: long story short, I came to see Ann summer of
Speaker 5: twenty seventeen as a registered Democratic campaigned for Bernie. That's
Speaker 5: kind of where I was at. And I got the
Speaker 5: job at CNN really happy to go. You know where
Speaker 5: real news is and you know, speak truth to power
Speaker 5: like you did at Fox and Everything. And you know,
Speaker 5: I went there to take down Trump and you know,
Speaker 5: keep him honest, so to speak. But even from the
Speaker 5: get go, within a first few weeks, my first job
Speaker 5: was boots on ground in Charlottesville after the riots happened
Speaker 5: at the University of Virginia. And even though I was
Speaker 5: not a fan of Trump and Republicans in general, I
Speaker 5: saw the president the then presidents say they're good people
Speaker 5: on both sides, but not the neo Nazis, white supremacists,
Speaker 5: and they should be disavowed totally. Like I saw that
Speaker 5: boots on ground. But what did I see when I
Speaker 5: got back to the office. It's the whole good people
Speaker 5: on both sides cut the fallacy that even Joe Biden
Speaker 5: put on his coming out campaign ad is those missing
Speaker 5: extra three seconds of very powerful context. And I just
Speaker 5: started to notice things like that over and over, and
Speaker 5: it was a really hard thing for me to stomach
Speaker 5: and swallow that this great, venerable news network that I
Speaker 5: grew up loving is not quite what it seemed to be.
Speaker 5: And the more and more I dug and the deeper
Speaker 5: and deeper I pulled on that thread, the more and
Speaker 5: more I found and I literally had my own Matrix moment.
Speaker 5: It's overplayed in cliche, but it truly is. You know,
Speaker 5: I had a choice to make to I want to
Speaker 5: take the red pill and really see how deep the
Speaker 5: rabbit hole goes? Or do I want to stick my
Speaker 5: head back in the sand and just do business as usual. Now,
Speaker 5: as we both know, you and I both are cut
Speaker 5: from the same cloth, we couldn't sit back idly and
Speaker 5: see our beloved you know, news networks themselves just go
Speaker 5: on business as usual. So I reached out to James
Speaker 5: o'keef when I saw him at Seapack in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 5: got to talk to him and after a few back
Speaker 5: and forth, he's gave me some camera store each day,
Speaker 5: and within six to seven months of recording. We had
Speaker 5: enough to go to air talking about Jeff Zucker himself
Speaker 5: and all the his lieutenants talking about, hey, we don't
Speaker 5: care what actual good news is going on in the world.
Speaker 5: We want to stick with Trump or this will pay
Speaker 5: Trump and the Republicans the bad lights.
Speaker 1: And most people don't know that this is Operation Mockingberg, right,
Speaker 1: Operation Mockingbird was this plan. I have to remember to
Speaker 1: mute because you know how this works. Unmute And as
Speaker 1: I said, I'm super tired today. So you know, Mockingbird
Speaker 1: was a way to control media via the intelligence apparatus,
Speaker 1: and it was very successful for a long time, and
Speaker 1: it was exposed by Woodward and Bernstein, who are themselves
Speaker 1: sort of you know, liberal journalists that ended up basically
Speaker 1: being just kind of other parts of the establishment. So
Speaker 1: but it's an insight into the reality of mass media
Speaker 1: being a controlled operation. And pretty much everybody can see
Speaker 1: this now.
Speaker 6: I think, right, fake news, unbelievable figs.
Speaker 1: But that's why it's fake news. Right, It's not just
Speaker 1: people making up stuff, it's actual talking points that are
Speaker 1: passed on a chain of command that come from a
Speaker 1: very powerful power structure, right, which is the Milner Fabian
Speaker 1: power structure, and they bought up all of these entities,
Speaker 1: all of these media things many many years ago, all
Speaker 1: these media outlets. And that's covered, as we said at
Speaker 1: length in the raw two text that we've been lecturing through,
Speaker 1: and there's plenty, there's plenty of other books things well
Speaker 1: known the Mighty Worlitzer, the control of the media via
Speaker 1: the intelligence agencies. And that's because people are recruiting to
Speaker 1: these things out of universities, out of academia, and they
Speaker 1: do not have your best interest in heart. In fact,
Speaker 1: many of these people are particularly co opted and brought
Speaker 1: into this because they're morally compromised people. So again we
Speaker 1: know Whitney Webb has just put out two volume text
Speaker 1: right about blackmail and how blackmail is crucial to controlling
Speaker 1: power structure. And that's exactly what we see again in
Speaker 1: both of these texts from people in the Cold War
Speaker 1: who had opposite world I mean, well, I don't opposite,
Speaker 1: but right wing versus left wing ideology, whether it's Cohler's
Speaker 1: text on Spies the Vatican or Williams's text on Gladio
Speaker 1: right both right wing and left wing during the Cold War,
Speaker 1: admitting the high degree of compromise that we see both
Speaker 1: in the Vatican and in for example, the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: in Russia during the Cold War. And we've done entire
Speaker 1: extents the talks and interviews with multiple competent academics and
Speaker 1: authorities on this, from Jim Jatras to Metropolitan Jonah. So
Speaker 1: here is the interview we do with Metropolitan Jona, which
Speaker 1: is kind of a classic. There is the Jatras interviews
Speaker 1: that we've done America and Byzantium is the first one
Speaker 1: we did, which I highly recommend going and watching that.
Speaker 1: And then USA, Russia Orthodoxy and Ukraine Schism, so you
Speaker 1: can go watch that. And I mean, do you see
Speaker 1: me over here interviewing idiots and nobody's or do you
Speaker 1: see me interviewing COLONL. Douglas McGregor? All right, who am
Speaker 1: I over here interviewing? You tell me? Do I interview
Speaker 1: nobody's idiots? Tards? Do we interview actually competent, smart, intelligent people?
Speaker 1: I mean, how would I be introduced? How would I
Speaker 1: talk to these people and have these interviews? If I
Speaker 1: have some sort of kuke crackpot? I mean, does somebody
Speaker 1: even thought about this? How would we do? How would
Speaker 1: we interview and do that entire three hour podcast with Coughlin,
Speaker 1: who was the Pentagon's chief intelligence analyst consultant on Islam
Speaker 1: for many years, doctor or Stephen Coughlin, How would we
Speaker 1: do that? Is it? Yeah? Exactly, it's because it's because
Speaker 1: I know what I'm talking about. I'm not crazy, and
Speaker 1: that's why I talked to these people, and the other
Speaker 1: people don't talk to these people. Right, some of the
Speaker 1: people who call me names or whatever who come at
Speaker 1: me attack me like they're not talking to these people.
Speaker 1: We're talking to high level global experts on stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: like who are these people talking to nobody?
Speaker 5: You know Fox News? Is this that they're damaging to
Speaker 5: the American psyche? So all these things I got to
Speaker 5: hear not from just low level people, but from the
Speaker 5: people at the top. And then we had enough to
Speaker 5: go to air, and we did in October of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 5: you know, starting a firestorm, and you know I eventually
Speaker 5: got fired actually that day, and then you know, we
Speaker 5: came down to move to Florida to escape it. And
Speaker 5: then fast forward three years and now CNN is kind
Speaker 5: of sad in a death spiral. They're just asking for air.
Speaker 5: They're even having to hire Bill Maher to come on
Speaker 5: and do like a.
Speaker 4: Jeff Zucker were you did you ever meet Chris?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna skip a head past. I mean, I want
Speaker 1: to get to the interesting part. I don't really care
Speaker 1: about his perfection.
Speaker 4: Basically the Hunter Biden corruption with Joe Biden. How can
Speaker 4: we say that Trump is the bad guy when Joe
Speaker 4: Biden has this all this corruption in his background. He's
Speaker 4: literally saying that off air, but then on air it's
Speaker 4: a totally different story.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 4: Why was the company doing that because they apparently agree
Speaker 4: with people on the right.
Speaker 1: Why is the pillows square?
Speaker 7: I'm glad you asked this.
Speaker 8: Is this is Mike Lindella. I'm telling you not to
Speaker 8: buy these pillows. These pillows are crazy. Go to my
Speaker 8: giez a dream sheet. It's a pillow shaped like a pyramid.
Speaker 8: To rule right off, you'll be wake fresh, ready to
Speaker 8: attack the day.
Speaker 1: Kart ba dum and to throw in a little Mike
Speaker 1: Lindell and it's.
Speaker 5: A wild ride. Ivory and I do want to kind
Speaker 5: of give credit where it's due. I believe the one
Speaker 5: you're talking about is the second or third CNN insider
Speaker 5: after me. That's their story. But it's a good problem
Speaker 5: to have where so many people are coming forward now
Speaker 5: from within CNN and other companies. But yes, this is
Speaker 5: the thing. These are the things that people say in
Speaker 5: private but not in public. And that's what Project Veritas
Speaker 5: is very good at, is getting people to on camera
Speaker 5: seeing the quiet parts out loud. But yeah, it's it's
Speaker 5: it's insane. I mean, obviously I can only speculate. I
Speaker 5: didn't get all of it off with that on tape,
Speaker 5: but I mean, if you're if you're an on air
Speaker 5: personality and you're getting a high six to low seven
Speaker 5: figure income, you know you pretty much when they say jump,
Speaker 5: you say how high? And you know that's my only speculations.
Speaker 5: They just didn't want to lose that fat paycheck living
Speaker 5: in DC or New York City.
Speaker 4: Wow. Well, yeah, they're jumping as high as the compromise
Speaker 4: company wants them to. And it's actually they're committing their
Speaker 4: own suicide, you know, by by doing this.
Speaker 5: It appears yep, And that's the thing.
Speaker 4: I was just going to add that they even tried
Speaker 4: CNN Plus because Fox Nation was doing so well. Fox
Speaker 4: Nation is the online streaming version of Fox News. To
Speaker 4: CNN said.
Speaker 9: Let's try it to CNN Plus doesn't even last a month.
Speaker 9: There's already so much left wing propaganda out there. Why
Speaker 9: do people want to pay for it with CNN Plus?
Speaker 5: Well, right, especially when it's going to be I think
Speaker 5: they open it up at what five or six bucks
Speaker 5: a month, and then when they were only getting five
Speaker 5: to ten thousand subscribers, they cut in half, and I mean.
Speaker 1: Soo jiant failer. We know that. Let's talk about the intelligence.
Speaker 5: They're currently employed now at CNN or have in the past,
Speaker 5: and the craziest part ivory and it's this is all
Speaker 5: most of it is public knowledge that these people would
Speaker 5: literally put on their LinkedIn former intelligence officer at x Y.
Speaker 1: There you go, a military at.
Speaker 5: This particular branch, like these people would literally put it
Speaker 5: on their LinkedIn public public profile like they from January
Speaker 5: to December and then from the next January at CNN.
Speaker 1: So these are just bureaucrats that just censor everything and
Speaker 1: lie to enforce the narrative and the whole system is fake.
Speaker 1: There you go, it's all fake and Gray vindicated. So
Speaker 1: here you go two former mainstream media people here telling
Speaker 1: you it's fake and gray And what did all the
Speaker 1: Twitter files show us. It's all fake and gray. All
Speaker 1: the Twitter for the last several years the whole time
Speaker 1: was an intelligence censored It was basically a Twitter was
Speaker 1: basically an online version of Operation Mockingbird. That's it, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly everything that I knew talked about long time ago.
Speaker 1: We talked about this on Boiler Room like seven years ago.
Speaker 1: So we were right vindicated on telling you this stuff.
Speaker 1: Seven years ago. We told you they would eat, that
Speaker 1: you'd be eating bugs, and that you would be told
Speaker 1: that cannibalism is good. Here we are seven years We
Speaker 1: told you about the cannibalism seven years ago. Jamie me
Speaker 1: eating bugs with Tristan five, six years ago, four or
Speaker 1: five years ago. Here we are eat the bugs. We're
Speaker 1: eating the bugs. We're in the most angliar world. So
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen crisis, let's create the most ang word. But
Speaker 1: remember none of that even exists. Father Damik says, there's
Speaker 1: no such thing as foundations that exists to influence religions
Speaker 1: or orthodoxy. There's no such thing as foundations that exist
Speaker 1: to influence or change orthodoxy. Now of the week, we'll
Speaker 1: be doing another stream with Rachel on institutional capture in
Speaker 1: terms of her research and if you don't know, Rachel
Speaker 1: has a sub stack where she covered the subversion of
Speaker 1: Christianity along the exact same lines of what we're talking about, right,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be very relevant to what we
Speaker 1: were talking about. Yeah, here it is, no, thank you,
Speaker 1: let's have the Brittany, Brittany, Brittany here you go. So
Speaker 1: go read this if you want to, gets into a
Speaker 1: lot more detail, and it's all sourced, all one demonstrable,
Speaker 1: nothing to do with conspiracy theories. So no Ortho Christian,
Speaker 1: no Jesse Dominic. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's facts.
Speaker 1: And let's read this a little bit too, because this
Speaker 1: is relevant. The patriarpar following and gave an interview. Let's
Speaker 1: see when did this come out? This was from I
Speaker 1: don't see a date. Let's just read it recent or
Speaker 1: was that the date? No, anyway, it's an article article
Speaker 1: within the last year or two. Readers are already tired
Speaker 1: of the abundant publications about Bartholomew regarding his ambiguous narrative
Speaker 1: as to what's happening in the church, joint photos with
Speaker 1: Francis all the ecumenist, blah blah blah, Bartholomew, so this
Speaker 1: article was twenty twenty one, gave another interview where he
Speaker 1: confirmed his activities in their future aimed at a union
Speaker 1: with Rome.
Speaker 2: It's a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, our following me only says it openly. It's
Speaker 1: a total conspiracy theory. And let's remember too that here
Speaker 1: I'll give you guys. Do I give you as Rachel's article.
Speaker 1: Remember I'm tired so much my mind as much as
Speaker 1: Rachel's article. So remember, none of this exists according to
Speaker 1: the normy docs. It doesn't exist. Not there. So we'll
Speaker 1: be covering that at the end of the week with
Speaker 1: Rachel the big Foundation money. But let's read the rest
Speaker 1: of this before it proceeds at analyzing this interview. Bartholomew
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, thirty years of patriarch. His message confirmed
Speaker 1: his loyalty to the liberal agenda of joining with the Vatican.
Speaker 1: In fact preamble. The interview was from a website prepared
Speaker 1: by a European Protestant publication, and the interview Bartholomew answers
Speaker 1: questions about unification with Rome, his actions in the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah. Of course, that's what it's about and
Speaker 1: I mean this is like, there's a bunch of things
Speaker 1: about this. It's not new, right. The mission of the Church,
Speaker 1: according to Bartholomew is number one, ecumenism, number two protection
Speaker 1: of the world and nature. Now, I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 1: ecumenism and protecting nature are not the one and two
Speaker 1: number one and two messages of Orthodoxy. Pretty sure that
Speaker 1: salvation of souls, worship of God, salvation of souls aren't
Speaker 1: those of the number one and number two things, I
Speaker 1: would think. And then the stability of and unity of
Speaker 1: world Orthodoxy. And why is that Well, because he is,
Speaker 1: of course a central figure in the World Council Churches,
Speaker 1: and the World Council Churches was an open Fabian socialist,
Speaker 1: create an institution on record, not a conspiracy theory set
Speaker 1: up by these people, and particularly by a figure from
Speaker 1: British intelligence. Venhoft remember that guy because it sounds like
Speaker 1: vim Hoff, But it's Vissert Hoofed who was involved in
Speaker 1: getting the World Council Churches set up and bringing in
Speaker 1: the Orthodox into the World Council Churches. There you can
Speaker 1: see in Ratiu's analysis right there, Vissart hoofed them, Vissard
Speaker 1: hoofed who was British Intelligence. What was the plans of
Speaker 1: the World Council Churches, It says the first Secretary General
Speaker 1: was them Vissert Hoofed who belonged to the Social Gospel
Speaker 1: movement which preach the formist Christian socialism. It was promoted
Speaker 1: by the Anglo American Fabian Group. In addition, Visit Hoof
Speaker 1: maintained close links to international money power via the MI
Speaker 1: six and OSS operating out of Geneva in the nineteen forties,
Speaker 1: as well as connections to the KGB. Ostensibly he was
Speaker 1: aiming to promote the unity of faith and peace through
Speaker 1: acumunism amongst Christian churches, but in reality the World Council
Speaker 1: Churches aim to create a new society along socialist lines
Speaker 1: Fabian socialists not Marxists, and they considered this is wild
Speaker 1: Rhodesia's Robert Mugabe as a ideal leader for a Christian society,
Speaker 1: I kid you not. The WCC is headquartered in the
Speaker 1: Ecumenical Center in Geneva, in the vicinity of various United
Speaker 1: Nations outfits, and has declared itself committed to the principles
Speaker 1: of purpose of the United Nations. Two entities have been
Speaker 1: officially engaged in strong and close collaboration. According to the
Speaker 1: United Nations Acumenists World website Ecclesia dot cod at UK,
Speaker 1: the Milner Fabian dominated power structure was instrumental in helping
Speaker 1: to set this up, as well as bringing in Anglican, Protestant,
Speaker 1: Orthodox and Roman Catholic involvement in the WCC. Now there's
Speaker 1: different levels of involvement. So just because a person attends
Speaker 1: a paper presentation, or just because a person goes and
Speaker 1: you know, discusses with groups, that's not acumenism, but the
Speaker 1: idea of it. You're saying that there is no church
Speaker 1: and we're all in the process of discovering the church,
Speaker 1: which is the presupposition of global ecumenist movements. Then that
Speaker 1: is heterodox in terms of ecclesiology. Now, where does the
Speaker 1: cumunist movement come from? This is really important of this
Speaker 1: because this is not even hard to find. It's actually
Speaker 1: openly in one of these classics, the Authorized Biography of
Speaker 1: the Rockefellers from Collier and Horowitz. This is a famous
Speaker 1: text that you've seen me reference many many times, many
Speaker 1: many countless pulling this out. So does any of this
Speaker 1: look like a conspiracy text? Does this look like a
Speaker 1: conspiracy text to you. Let's look at this. This is
Speaker 1: a gigantic, gigantor tone official biography. You understand that that's
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy text. You know the difference between those
Speaker 1: two nineteen seventy six Collier and Horowitz. Okay, And what
Speaker 1: does the official from the archives, the official history of
Speaker 1: the Rockefeller family tell us about ecumenism. Well, I'd be
Speaker 1: happy to tell you about it. It's one of the
Speaker 1: best chapters in the book. So this is over on
Speaker 1: page Let's see if we can get this.
Speaker 2: This is a.
Speaker 1: Gigantorpe book, so let's see if we can make it
Speaker 1: fit over here where you can see it. I'm spilling
Speaker 1: chalks everywhere. So here's the thing. I can't see it
Speaker 1: when we do this, I can't see what's over here,
Speaker 1: all right. So this is the chapter on acumenism, in
Speaker 1: the founding of ecumenism, in the funding of ecumenism via
Speaker 1: this family's vast wealth. And this is Juniorefeller had inherited
Speaker 1: the Eliza Rockefeller's tendency to consolidate and trim wastefulness. The
Speaker 1: alder the where he was involved in his Baptist church,
Speaker 1: which he decided that it was time to get rid
Speaker 1: of the fundamentalist beliefs and turn it into something like
Speaker 1: a social gospel social gospel. The formation of the Federal
Speaker 1: Council of Churches in nineteen eight had given the ecaumenical
Speaker 1: movement there you got right there, preliminary organized form. And
Speaker 1: what was the goal of the Rockefeller Ecumenist movement, which
Speaker 1: is the basis for the World Council Churches National Council Churches,
Speaker 1: the eventual erection of a one world religion that would
Speaker 1: be controlled by this family which dominates the American power
Speaker 1: structure and landscape. So he could basically turn the new
Speaker 1: religion into an element of Americanist soft power social gospel
Speaker 1: right here, s yeh? Can you read? Is this a
Speaker 1: conspiracy text?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Do we have a lot of slow boys in the
Speaker 1: audience that to spell this out for you step by step,
Speaker 1: that'll walk you through this. People can't figure this out.
Speaker 1: Seventy five million dollars was given via the Council Foreign
Speaker 1: Relations and via the Rockefellers to help foster this burgeoning
Speaker 1: Acumenist movement in the nineteen thirties. In nineteen thirty two,
Speaker 1: this money was given they helped. They chose modernist professors, seminarians,
Speaker 1: and teachers such as Reverends Buttrick Gates, and from the
Speaker 1: Charitable Trust John Mott and Ivy Lee. All these are
Speaker 1: partisans of a modernist church endorsing all progressive as trends.
Speaker 1: The conflicts had broken out into a storm at the
Speaker 1: head of one of these circles being the new Reverend
Speaker 1: Harry Emerson Fosdick, brother of Raymond and pastor of the
Speaker 1: old Presbyterian Church. Fosick had begun as a conciliator against fundamentalism.
Speaker 1: Fosbick and was then chosen by Junior Rockefeller to beat
Speaker 1: their sort of frontispiece for Rockefeller Cumenism. Junior gave twenty
Speaker 1: six million dollars. Check this out. Junior Rockefeller gives twenty
Speaker 1: six million dollars for the creation of the Riverside Cathedral,
Speaker 1: and they put Fosdick in as the minister of their
Speaker 1: own created Protestant church. And this confrontation was continued at
Speaker 1: the Protestant General Since the fundamentalist Protestants at this time
Speaker 1: are having a problem with this and rejecting it. Right,
Speaker 1: let's get back over here. And so they note that
Speaker 1: Fosdick was always attacked and continued to be attacked on
Speaker 1: the question of modernism. However, Junior Rockefeller always continued to
Speaker 1: support him. And then it says in the footnote, the
Speaker 1: confrontation continued in the Protestant General Assembly, which is some
Speaker 1: Protestant meeting trying to defend against liberalism. The fundamentalists were
Speaker 1: led by William Jennings Bryan, and they tried to excommunicate Fosdick,
Speaker 1: charging that he was guilty of heresy casting doubt on
Speaker 1: the virgin birth. So Fosdick denied the virgin birth right.
Speaker 1: Fosdick was aided in his parliamentary victory over William Jennings
Speaker 1: Bryan by a young attorney who became a leading layman
Speaker 1: in the church, and he felt strongly about denying the
Speaker 1: virgin birth. Who was this leading layman. Why it was
Speaker 1: none other than John Foster Dulles. You may have heard
Speaker 1: of these figures because Alan Dulles he's the head of
Speaker 1: the CIA. So you have these Rockefeller attache underlings minions.
Speaker 1: One hand, they're involved in the very beginning and founding
Speaker 1: a creation of the CIAOSS and then the CIA, and
Speaker 1: then you have Dullest family involved in the religious circles.
Speaker 1: And by the way, there's a whole other one that
Speaker 1: becomes a cardinal, Avery Dulles, same family. In nineteen thirty,
Speaker 1: six thousand people gathered for the opening service at the
Speaker 1: giant Gothic Riverside Cathedral. You gotta see this. This is
Speaker 1: one of the best parts for her. Check this out.
Speaker 1: The cathedral featured a syncretous cacophony of new religious figures
Speaker 1: gathered under one syncretous roof. Who were the saints in
Speaker 1: this new modernist Rockefeller created cathedral? Why none other than Confucius, Moses, Hegel, Dante, Mohammed,
Speaker 1: Darwin and Jesus. The Rockefellers then created Union Theological Seminary.
Speaker 1: Junior helped with that endowment by giving a one million
Speaker 1: dollar gift, or they bought it off. If they created
Speaker 1: or bought it, I think they pretty much created through
Speaker 1: the Laura Spelman Rockefler Memorial Fund. They promoted through Union
Speaker 1: Seminary reinholdniber all of the fame as Protestant liberals, especially
Speaker 1: rein holdneber So. In other words, you understand that Protestant
Speaker 1: liberalism in the twentieth century is a creation of these people.
Speaker 1: This is not about when you get this book out
Speaker 1: of the way, It's not about that. It's not about
Speaker 1: we're not doing weaponizing anthropology. Right now. We will look
Speaker 1: at a chapter in that book. I think it don't
Speaker 1: talk about religion in there. But by the time of
Speaker 1: his death, Junior had contributed a total of seventy five
Speaker 1: million dollars too. This is in the thirties, dude, thirties
Speaker 1: and forties money to ecumenism, and this and the promotion
Speaker 1: of liberal Protestantism to a degree, Junior's go this is
Speaker 1: a footnote. See this right here, seventy five million of
Speaker 1: Junior Rockefeller to create essentially the modern ecumenist movement. And
Speaker 1: then what do we have here? To some degree, this
Speaker 1: dream of a united streamline church came true. In nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty the Federal Council Churches merged with twelve Protestant liberal agencies,
Speaker 1: the National Council Triche, which was a result Rockefeller provided
Speaker 1: the initial capital to fund the study of organizational structures
Speaker 1: for a new created church, and thus the Riverside Church
Speaker 1: as its headquarters. And then they built a fifteen story
Speaker 1: interchurch center that became the essence of the ecumenist movement.
Speaker 1: There you go, one percent created by these people in
Speaker 1: tandem with their Eastern Seaboard elite families, in tandem with
Speaker 1: the British Royal Society elite. One percent basic academic geopolitical history.
Speaker 1: So is it a conspiracy, Well, it's a conspiracy in
Speaker 1: the sense that these people are evil and they want
Speaker 1: to utilize religion and Christianity for their own purposes, and
Speaker 1: they conspire to do it. But it's not a conspiracy
Speaker 1: the sense that it's hidden. It's out in the open.
Speaker 1: And do you understand these aren't conspiracy texts. Now, a
Speaker 1: little interlude here. I want to thank our friends that
Speaker 1: gave us and they wrote a really nice note at
Speaker 1: the event. We got an icon of Saint Joseph the hesycast.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. And then we got a nice
Speaker 1: little note for thanking us for helping to convert them
Speaker 1: to Orthodoxy. So I appreciate that. I won't h I
Speaker 1: think they did. They want I'll give a first name
Speaker 1: shout out right, so it's Justin and Abby. I think Gabby.
Speaker 1: Justin and Gabby shout out to you guys. Thank you
Speaker 1: for that cool icon, and thank you guys for the
Speaker 1: super chest. Remember to support vide superchet function, which is
Speaker 1: stream labs. You can use the stream labs link right
Speaker 1: there to send your super chat. I'll read those here
Speaker 1: in a second. That does help keep us going. Supports
Speaker 1: the show. You can also support us by going over
Speaker 1: in signing up for our philosophy course, the full thirty
Speaker 1: plus hours course, maybe forty I forget how many. With
Speaker 1: the Q and A, we will do a season two
Speaker 1: right so the next season where you want. If you
Speaker 1: want the tutoring option that begins March ninth, I think
Speaker 1: it's March eighth or ninth, somewhere in there, whatever that
Speaker 1: Thursday is, whether that's I don't know, let's see what
Speaker 1: day that is March ninth. So if you want the
Speaker 1: tutoring option that starts March ninth. If you don't want
Speaker 1: the tutoring option, then just get the straight up full
Speaker 1: do it yourself course of history of Western philosophy, and
Speaker 1: you get that here at the Agora Autonomy Marketplace. This
Speaker 1: is Richard's Agora Autonomy Marketplace. Shout out to Richard Grove,
Speaker 1: our good buddy over at Grand theftworldtragian Hoope dot Com
Speaker 1: and Autonomy Reason university, So get your own personal private
Speaker 1: education outside of the establishment brainwashing system via what Richard
Speaker 1: is building over at Tragyanhope dot com. Thank you guys
Speaker 1: for those super chats. You get the idea, so the
Speaker 1: background to what we're seeing with Bartholomew and the idea
Speaker 1: for the push for a world religion together with all
Speaker 1: the other Protestant sex and now together with Kris Loom
Speaker 1: and the Abu Dhabi Faith Center which just opened. I
Speaker 1: think right this just opened. Somebody was saying on Twitter,
Speaker 1: can we confirm that the Abrahamic Faith House in United
Speaker 1: Arab Emirates that comes out of old Papa Frank's document
Speaker 1: on a Human Fraternity that he signed together with one
Speaker 1: of the Emams. The shared values that we all have,
Speaker 1: even though we don't have shared values because we don't
Speaker 1: believe in natural theology Vatican two and no stratate. But
Speaker 1: there's quite a few Ecumenists and want to be Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics and they do believe that we all worship the
Speaker 1: same God because of a word concept fallacy known as
Speaker 1: the word Father or the word God or monotheism, as
Speaker 1: if those things mean the same thing, as if monarchical
Speaker 1: Trinitarianism is the same thing as unitarianism. It's not, but
Speaker 1: didn't you know it was? Well, Francis and the Grand
Speaker 1: Emam have decided that it is, and it's good enough
Speaker 1: now that we can build an entire faith center, which
Speaker 1: has it just opened Abu Dhabi, the Abramic Faith Center.
Speaker 1: I mean, if this doesn't convince you, yeah, here we go.
Speaker 1: I think it just would open a day or two
Speaker 1: ago March first, so not open yet almost open. So
Speaker 1: there's three stupid ass fake ass cathedrals or whatever these are.
Speaker 1: The look like looks like a damn office depot, like
Speaker 1: a warehouse, looks like a Communists What the heck? What
Speaker 1: is that? Illuminate confirm right opens March first. It's a
Speaker 1: multi faith place of worship. How can you have a
Speaker 1: multi faith place of worship together with arians and haters
Speaker 1: of Christ? Right, John says, anyone who denies the incarnations
Speaker 1: of the spirit of Antichrist? Okay, well, then that means
Speaker 1: Islam is of the spirit of Antichrist. So how are
Speaker 1: you going to have a common faith center together with
Speaker 1: Arius and Astorias and Eunomius and Muhammad and Mimonoides. Oh well,
Speaker 1: if you believe the World Council of Church's new religion
Speaker 1: of the Rockefellers, and then yeah, we're all worshiping the
Speaker 1: same thing because it's the same word God. Okay, So
Speaker 1: if I believe in one God and it's Satan or Lucifer,
Speaker 1: or are we still worshiping the same God because it's
Speaker 1: the same it's a monotheism. This is the stupidity of
Speaker 1: these people. They literally argue that by way I had.
Speaker 1: I was at a philosophy conference, a conference a few
Speaker 1: days ago which I will not be going back to
Speaker 1: the gigantic, four hundred pound boomer screaming in my face
Speaker 1: that our goal is to teach skeptics, but by denying
Speaker 1: natural theology, it's to create human skeptics. Yeah. Sure, so
Speaker 1: my goal is to create people to take atheist skeptics,
Speaker 1: convert them to Orthodoxy, to make them atheo skeptics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because it makes a lot of sense. I'm not joking
Speaker 1: a foreigner pound screaming boomer academic in my face. Because
Speaker 1: I deny natural theology, people are losing it, dude. People
Speaker 1: are just nuts. And you know that's why we're We're
Speaker 1: We're gonna tighten up our circles who we interact with. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was four hunderd pounds foreigner pound boomer academics, screaming
Speaker 1: in my face about natural theology, no arguments, just screaming
Speaker 1: those gonna fight me. I'm not joking. So I just
Speaker 1: left because we're not dealing with rational people anymore. We're
Speaker 1: dealing with people are just losing their mind. I have
Speaker 1: these people are on freaking SSR eyes and half of
Speaker 1: them are losing their mind. So we've got to tighten
Speaker 1: up who we talk to and who we interact with
Speaker 1: because people are getting crazy. Who are going nuts? So,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of subversives out there too, right,
Speaker 1: So people pretend to be nice and friendly and they're
Speaker 1: just completely subversive, demonic individuals. So let's look at next
Speaker 1: clip because now you see that he admitted that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with institutional capture. Sook at institutional capture or influence
Speaker 1: in geo soft power through this interview, which is interesting
Speaker 1: because I just got this guy's book. I have not
Speaker 1: read it yet. We are. It's not very long, so
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to it's his PhD thesis, I guess
Speaker 1: on Aaron into the Wilderness. The religion the history of
Speaker 1: the CIA, and we got some good clips that we'll
Speaker 1: play from this interview just a little bit to give
Speaker 1: you a taste of what we're dealing with.
Speaker 10: Here, religion and law and so in the US. I've
Speaker 10: always been interested in sorts of First Amendment issues, how
Speaker 10: that plays out in the public square, But my original
Speaker 10: idea for the project was actually something bit different. I
Speaker 10: was interested in how antique Catholicism in the United States
Speaker 10: played out with respect to national security concerns in the
Speaker 10: Cold War. And as I was doing some early, sort
Speaker 10: of preliminary poking around in various archives for that project,
Speaker 10: I stumbled into the story of Tom Dooley, which is
Speaker 10: basically just part of the story of the CIA's efforts
Speaker 10: as part of the Vietnam War to get Americans to
Speaker 10: think about Catholicism differently. And I just I'd never encountered this,
Speaker 10: I'd never heard of this, and so I kind of
Speaker 10: hold on that thread and the rest of the project
Speaker 10: came together bit by bit, and so for me, I
Speaker 10: think it wasn't something that I had thought about before,
Speaker 10: But once I got into the archives and started tracking
Speaker 10: down some names, it made sense to me that for
Speaker 10: many of the same reasons I found studying religion interesting
Speaker 10: that intelligence officers in various decades would have found it
Speaker 10: useful as well.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so I think you know one of the things else.
Speaker 1: So news alert shocker, government and intelligence agencies find religion
Speaker 1: to be useful. I find it to be interesting and
Speaker 1: relevant to what they do.
Speaker 7: As I was reading through the book, and particularly in
Speaker 7: the early days, is how much this is? This is
Speaker 7: a book definitely about the CIA and religion, but like
Speaker 7: how much this is also a book about religious studies
Speaker 7: and how religious studies shapes things more than maybe they expected, right,
Speaker 7: so so so much of how the CIA is the
Speaker 7: always says into the CIA is going to approach religion
Speaker 7: is based on what you know, academics and a popular
Speaker 7: conscious thought about religion at the time in the forties
Speaker 7: and the fifties. How they had and this this newfound
Speaker 7: interest in world religions. So I guess talked to us
Speaker 7: a bit about how.
Speaker 1: Happened and to help give context for that. The reason
Speaker 1: they had an interest in world religions is precisely for
Speaker 1: what I've been telling you the last hour. That's why
Speaker 1: part of what part of weaponizing anthropology is everyone tracking
Speaker 1: are we understanding.
Speaker 7: You know, the way to see a way it was
Speaker 7: a suppose to how that is not like just invented
Speaker 7: in a vacuum, but was actually the outworking of, Yeah,
Speaker 7: the kind of the way that field was at the time.
Speaker 10: Yes, Yeah, I've always been interested in the history of
Speaker 10: the academic study of religion. I I I. Originally that
Speaker 10: was another one of my ideas for the project early on,
Speaker 10: was to sort of write up that history in North America.
Speaker 10: And I think, you know, the main problem with that
Speaker 10: is that there's like seventeen people who might be interested
Speaker 10: in reading such a thing, right, Like, it's pretty niche.
Speaker 10: And so one of the things I was really excited
Speaker 10: about with this project is that it does let me
Speaker 10: work in, as you noted, some of the other developments
Speaker 10: happening in the broader study of religion. So one of
Speaker 10: the things that immediately jumped out to me was some
Speaker 10: of the traces you can find in some of the
Speaker 10: actual kind of academic work at the time. So Hustin
Speaker 10: Smith's Religions of Man I mentioned this at one point
Speaker 10: in the book, but it's the first or second edition.
Speaker 10: In the preface of that book, he talks about one
Speaker 10: of the reasons for doing compared to religious studies is
Speaker 10: that the US military is going to need to know
Speaker 10: this stuff to like rule people or work with them
Speaker 10: or whatever. Right, and so it's a very kind of
Speaker 10: applied religious studies understood.
Speaker 1: That's the that's the anthropology that we're talking about.
Speaker 10: And this was all part of a much larger piece
Speaker 10: of how folks in the US and other places around
Speaker 10: the world too, we're thinking about religion. And so the
Speaker 10: big one that jumps out to me is that both
Speaker 10: in the CIA as well as its predecessor of the OSS,
Speaker 10: and in a lot of universities at the time, religion
Speaker 10: was kind of seen as this universal translator. I call
Speaker 10: it a Rosetta stone in the book because one of
Speaker 10: the things that one of the assumptions that people had
Speaker 10: at this time was that if you could understand one
Speaker 10: particular religious tradition, you could understand others. And it's of
Speaker 10: course the very like essentialist understanding of religion, or if
Speaker 10: you can get to the core, you could figure it out,
Speaker 10: and you could then use that to scaffold and understanding
Speaker 10: of other religious systems. And of course, for an intelligence agency,
Speaker 10: really for any sort of government agency, the appeal here
Speaker 10: was that, you know, you wouldn't have to sort of
Speaker 10: have a study of each religion necessarily, You wouldn't have
Speaker 10: to have specialists in every area. If you can crack
Speaker 10: you know, Roman Catholicism, you can figure out Buddhism or something,
Speaker 10: which sounds really right. I mean, it sounds ridiculous. But
Speaker 10: this is also some of the stuff we we found
Speaker 10: in the archives, and so along with this that basically
Speaker 10: religion could be a universal translator that right, it could
Speaker 10: get past ideas or differences of language.
Speaker 1: Ok, let's let's give it as this is. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: we know that the other interested in religion.
Speaker 11: It es so yeah, talk us a bit about that,
Speaker 11: about how that kind of I guess as the outplay
Speaker 11: of this, because it's interesting you talk about how like
Speaker 11: on the other end of things, it was the kind
Speaker 11: of the early victories in World War two that was like,
Speaker 11: see it works, and then that kind of held and
Speaker 11: maybe would jump into some of the other bits in between.
Speaker 7: But I mentioned in kind of how that yes, I
Speaker 7: guess the as you said that kind of came tumbling
Speaker 7: down a little bit there at the end.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, the I mean the wow come tumbling wow
Speaker 6: is that John Boomer Mellencamp.
Speaker 1: Is there anyone worse than John Boomer and Mellencamp?
Speaker 2: So I don't wanted to know that just.
Speaker 1: Thee let the Walls come tumbling down? Was John Gruger
Speaker 1: Mellencamp singing about the fall of Berlin Wall? Is that
Speaker 1: what that's about? Is that more Boomer Cia Tesla Scorpions crap?
Speaker 1: Did you not know that? By the way, was this Scorpions?
Speaker 1: I can't keep with these horrible hair metal bands? Dude?
Speaker 1: Who's the uh? A lot of y'all didn't even know.
Speaker 2: This team me to the Minica in the moment of night?
Speaker 1: Who is it? These horrible bands? It's a Guardian article?
Speaker 1: Is it Scorpions? I don't know these stupid bands? Winds
Speaker 1: have changed? Who sings that? Y'all didn't know that was
Speaker 1: a CIA operation? Duh? Scorpions Scorpions power ballad? Was the
Speaker 1: sound of Iron Curtains fall? Yeah? It was a big
Speaker 1: music producer who put to go out of this big
Speaker 1: operation too for at the behest of the CIA for
Speaker 1: Scorpions to play the Fall of Berlin Wall. Y'all didn't
Speaker 1: even know that, did you?
Speaker 2: Co conspiracy? Thor tea me in the Manica Moment window change.
Speaker 1: Which, by the way, that's about like Western neoliberalism breathing
Speaker 1: through the winds of that's what it's. It's actually some
Speaker 1: people argue there's a little eso terry stuff going on. There
Speaker 1: could be, I mean, I don't listen to freaking scorpions
Speaker 1: and this boomer crap. But yeah, a lot of y'all
Speaker 1: didn't even know that that was a CIA, And there's
Speaker 1: a whole crazy story about this too. Uh yeah, for real,
Speaker 1: let's get to some more of this where we're at.
Speaker 10: The simplest way I think to talk about it is
Speaker 10: that the as you mentioned right at the beginning of
Speaker 10: the story, is a story about building confidence in these
Speaker 10: intelligence agencies because of the perceived role they played in
Speaker 10: the victories in World War Two and the early Cold War. It's,
Speaker 10: you know, probably worth noting that a lot of those
Speaker 10: victories in what they called the religious approach to intelligence
Speaker 10: may not have been due for as much credit as
Speaker 10: they sometimes gave it. But nonetheless, right, this sort of
Speaker 10: encouraged the idea that, like this was a profitable avenue
Speaker 10: for intelligence work, and so it builds and builds, and
Speaker 10: after the Iranian Revolution, you see a couple things happen,
Speaker 10: but the big one is that all of a sudden,
Speaker 10: religion within the body of Vieuss intelligence work gets looked
Speaker 10: at much more critically, and so in the lead up
Speaker 10: to the revolution in the late seventies, even there's an
Speaker 10: uptick and coverage of Islam, there's an uptick and coverage
Speaker 10: of Iran. But it's this idea that Ayatola Homoni is
Speaker 10: just basically that he's crazy and he's sort of almost
Speaker 10: he's almost described as like a time traveler, right, that
Speaker 10: he's this guy that's kind of from the ancient past.
Speaker 10: And there's all of these incredible quotes in the Doctor.
Speaker 1: Dude, that's what That's what the Terish at the beginning
Speaker 1: of Back to the Future are, even though they're Libyan, like,
Speaker 1: it's the time traveling Komani Mari. Remember, remember the Terish,
Speaker 1: it's the Libyan terrorist. Though that doesn't work, but we'll
Speaker 1: make it work.
Speaker 10: Human Doug Miner a record about you know, there's no
Speaker 10: way he could run a modern country because you know,
Speaker 10: someone of his religious interest isn't interested in the modern world.
Speaker 10: He doesn't fit. That's the thing that keeps coming back.
Speaker 10: He doesn't fit and then he does fit as it
Speaker 10: turns out right, and all of a sudden they sort
Speaker 10: of have to reassess what went wrong. And so from
Speaker 10: nineteen seventy seven, nineteen seventy eight, then to nineteen eighty
Speaker 10: eighty one, you just see a total shift in how,
Speaker 10: at least to classified documents we have talk about religion.
Speaker 10: And I think the big place you see that are
Speaker 10: the big evidence for that is in the much more
Speaker 10: suspicious stance that the US takes towards liberation theology in
Speaker 10: Central and South America. That right, these are Catholic folks
Speaker 10: doing it. These are pre so many cases.
Speaker 1: But keep in mind that even though there is a
Speaker 1: conservative traditionalist element within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches
Speaker 1: that do not like liberation theology because of their obvious
Speaker 1: connections to Marxism and socialism, there's also a sizable contingent
Speaker 1: within the American power structure that favors liberalism, social gospel,
Speaker 1: and liberation theology because it's amenable too progressing Christianity towards
Speaker 1: the acceptance of family planning.
Speaker 4: That