Speaker 1: And so it's just kind of an inner experience that
might be manifested in different ways, but there's no external
form to it. So you have figures like Schleiermacher, you
have Julius Bellhausen, but it's really Bellehausen who's the pioneer
of critiquing the texts. And Bellhausen says, the problem isn't
really the Bible as a whole, it's actually the Old Testament.
And what we've got to do is get rid of
all these judaic ideas of ceremonies and calendars and going
to some actual building and having some sort of baptism
or whatever. All that needs to be wiped away. And
he thought the basic way to do that would be
to cut up the Old Testament and figure out that, oh, actually,
none of this is really from a deity. It's actually
a combination of different traditions. And you have what's called
the it's called the school that has this idea of
the documentary hypothesis. And this is where you get the
idea of J. E. P. D. The Yahwist tradition, the
Ylowist tradition, the priestly tradition, and the deuteronomous tradition. And
so anytime you do any textual studies, you'll come across
all of this, and the idea is that, oh, well, well,
so what is it? All right, So if it's not
from God, what is it? Well, it looks like there's
all these different traditions J. E. P. D. Right, there's
the Yahaist tradition, and these are the guys who at
some point in the Old Testament were writing Genesis or whatever.
They were using the term yahweh. Then there's this other
group of people. They were the Elohists, and they were
using the term eloheen. And then there was the priestly
cast and they were using the priestly ideas, and they
interjected the levites and the temple and the ceremonials, and
so it's basically just a big hodgepodge of garbage according
to Vellhausen. And so what he thought needed to be happening,
needed to happen was purge all that Old Testament jump
in his mind, and then you get based the simple
message in the New Testament in Jesus. And in theological terms,
this is really just a rehashing of the gnostic theology
of the Early Church, where you had various teachers like
Valentinus and other Gnostics who taught that that the Old
Testament texts were from an evil God and that was
a source of all problems. And really we just need
the simple inner message of Jesus. Now. So that's a
long winded thing, but it's important because this is where
we're going to get to ecumenism. So I should add
as well that Martin Luther is important in this because
he wrote a famous treatise called against the Jews in
their Lives, and this would be very influential in German
movements of anti Semitism of the time of World War Two.
It would kind of have a rebirth, not castigating Germans,
not saying that the Jews and Zionists are good, just
trying to state what was going on. So Luther also
of course shared a hatred for the law for Judaism ceremonies.
There's numerous statements in Luther's writings where he speaks explicitly
this way. He says such things such as, I wish
I could punch Moses' teeth out, you know. He says
that everything in the in the Old Testament is you know,
worthy of the trash man literally, and so This is
where we get in Lutheran theology, the idea of the
radical dichotomy of law and gospel. Right, So Luther had
this idea that you go through the Bible and you
read some textas law, toss that it out, read some
Texas Gospel thumbs up. That's good. And so this idea
of everything judaic, so so called needing to be purged,
actually kind of has a precedent in Luther, and then
it filters down to Bellhausen. And with Bellhausen and the
documentary hypothesis, you have this idea that the entire Bible
could be remodeled, cut up, chopped up. Now fast forward
about one hundred years and the turn of the century
you have the extension of that which was, hey, wait
a minute, the documentary hypothesis is not just good enough.
We actually need the Jesus quest. And so the Jesus
quest is this idea that we need to get to
the real sources of Jesus. And said they said, well,
the New Testaments the exact same way. It's all from
a bunch of different sources. It's a munch of gobblygoog
It doesn't mean anything. It's just a reflection of the
Jewish Messianism and millennialism of the first century, and so
it has a whole bunch of competing contradictory sources. And
these would be things like the enigmatic queue that you'll
learn about in textual studies. And there is no such
thing as que. It's very much like Darwinism. It's just
a hypothesized source for something like the Gospel of Mark. Now,
curious side note, in textuals this is actually no longer
even adhere to the cutting edged so called progressive academia.
If you go to places like Yale University, you can
clind lectures of the debunking of Q. All right, but
the Q was actually very popular for many years as
a supposed source of various sections of the New Testament. So,
as we see, this is always in progress. There's not
any real consistency, and you'll still find scholars citing Queue,
even though the cutting edge liberal scholars no longer adhere
to it. So it's another one of these things like Darwinism,
where it's all in the scientific realm of academia, and
it's just kind of trends, is really all it is.
It's just waves of trends that come and go, and
just like with Darlinism, when you get into looking at
textual studies, you'll find out how much of this actually
has absolutely no basis whatsoever. All are at some point
who came up with an idea, came up with a theory,
somebody probably put monetary backing behind it, some banking interests
that like that, and the idea goes the viral, I
guess you could say, and then all the universities then
promote the documentary hypothesis or Q or whatever, and everybody
just oh, yeah, well, that's just true. We know that's true.
And however, I guarantee you ninety five percent of the
people who will talk or have been influenced by these
theories have not actually done much textual research. They went
to some seminary or university that was infected with this
idea and they believe it because they were told it
without having actually looked into the problems with it or
evidence to the contrary. So how do we get to
acumunism from all this modernism? Well, so modernism in the
realm of religion and theology in church is an outworking
I would say of this ideology, this ideology of higher critics,
because it says, hey, you are foundational documents that you
believe in this religion. They're not true. So it's time
to update, buddy, get with the times. Look, we've got
Darwinism now, and all the higher critics, I should add,
we're very much influenced by process philosophy, process theology. I
mentioned Schleiermacher earlier. That's processed theology and manual kant right
and empiricism. And so you can see how as we
get into the time of the Jesus Quest, now we're
getting you know, post Darwin. Oh, everything is subject to change,
and so certainly documents must be subject to change because
they don't have any divine source. They must simply have
some human source, just some guy running them down the
sociological interpretation of religion or whatever anthropological interpretation. So the
texts are merely you know, human symbols and allegories. They
don't have any real meaning. And so therefore your churches
have to be updated. You've got to get with the times.
And this is really what you see promoted at the
time of modernism. And I can even tell you, you know,
the different responses and theologians in the different churches who
are promoting this. So you have and for example, in
Presbyterianism in the US, you have this is a big
controversy I think in the nineteen twenties with what's called
the pc USA and it is thornwell foreign, I forget things.
That guy's name. We've talked about him before in regards
to Riverside Church, which is the Rockefeller Church, and they
had a pc USA minister, Charles Henry Thorn whatever the
guy's I know that the guy's name always escapes me.
But he was all in that's it, that's it. Yeah,
he was all into the and Jefferson Masonry and all
you know, this is the church that has the statue
of Moses next to Darawan, next to Thomas Jefferson, and
it is so you have this. I believe on the
front of the Century nineteen oh four or five some
sort of international congress or religions of some sort. And
I don't think yet that the Rockefellers were intimately involved
in this, but this was people who had a lot
of Hindu ideology, and Hinduism is very syncretistic, and they thought,
what we need to do is kind of move Western
religions into the direction of Eastern thought.
Speaker 2: No, real, real quick, let me let me add something
in there, just real fast to stay on what you
want to talk about. But it's interesting that you bought
a Hinduism because one of this kind of collides with
what was going on in California at the same time,
with the evangelical movement of the turn of the century. Yes,
I was gonna mention and with what was called, you know,
the Gospels of Wealth or you know, new thoughts and
forgetting all were Yeah, the Gospel, all those things you know, Yes,
and all of those things. Interestingly in us, all of
those ideas which still today proliferates through Christianity, most of
those ideas actually come from theosophy. There were a lot
of a lot of the evangelicals in the beginning were
into theosophy.
Speaker 1: Yes, this congress of religions that I'm trying to think
of that is nineteen oh four or five or maybe eight,
late eighteen nineties, this would include a lot of people
who would be instrumental in charismaticism. So you're absolutely right.
And the charismatic movement has its origin around the same
time in the Azuza Street Revival in California. So you're
absolutely right. And the reason that charismaticism with factor into
this is that the idea in charismatic movement would be
it's no longer about the book. It's no longer about
what's in you know, New Testament or Old Testament. It's
now about your direct experience. And this experience is not
it doesn't necessarily have any consistent content. It could just
simply be you know, your emotional hype, your reactions to
the music, you know, and with the drum and the
bass and all that, and the band playing and you know,
flopping around in the aisles. Anything is a legitimate potential
experience of the quote spirit. So this existential phenomena or
this this existential emotional experience is what takes over from
any of the older notions, be it Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox
or whatever of that. You know, believing what's in the text,
going to a building and worshiping in a certain liturgical
fashion or whatever. It's now about ecstatic experience in emotionalism,
I would say. And so you're absolutely right. So the
charismatic movement would be very influential in spreading a humanism
precisely because it's all about a individual subjective experience. The
charismaticism also has its origins in Pietistic movement, which comes
out of the Reformation. As I mentioned earlier and with
a Kant, for example, was raised as a Pietist. His
mother was a Pietistic German Protestant, and Pietism thought that
it was a count of reaction to what's called Protestant scholasticism.
So at the time of the Reformation, you had the reformers,
and then you had the Roman Catholic response with the
counter Reformation, and then you had as a response on
the part of the Protestants what's called the Protestant scholasticism.
And so this would be like Francis Turitan or Philip
Melancthon Luther's body, and what they would do is try
to offer a you know, extended academic scholastic response, you know,
to their opponent, much like medieval scholastics of Thomas Aquinas
or somebody like that. A response to that arid, dry, technical,
abstruse perspective is Pietism. And this flourished mainly in Germany,
and its Pietism that would come to influence the Anabaptist
so that when you talk about Baptists Baptists actually descend
from the Anabaptists, who are connected to the Pietists. So
that's why we have these different movements today. They kind
of trace back through these different ideologies. But you're absolutely right.
Modernism is intimately connected with the early charismatic and new
thought movements. I should add real quick as well, there
was a controversy in American Christianity with New Light and
Old Light Presbyterian And now this goes back to like
John Edwards and Princeton, the founding of Princeton University and
so forth, where you had these old stuffy Calvinists, and
then you have these other Calvinists who at the behest
of the preaching sinners in the hands of an angry God.
By Jonathan Edwards, people started having these charismatic experiences, like
Jonathan Edwards would preach about how bad hell was, and
people started flopping around and crying and freaking out right.
And so the idea was, oh, this is a you know,
this is a revival, this is a movement of the spirit.
Contrary to that, you had other Presbyterians who were the
old line Presbyterians who were saying, no, no, no, you can't
have that. This is we believe in predestination, election, Calvinism,
et cetera. You can't have these these manifestations like this
emotionalism and whatnot. This is not of God, it's of
the devil. And so you had this split in Presbyterianism
at that time. And out of this, if I recall,
out of this new Presbyterian movement would become American Revivalism.
So American revivalism also plays into this where you have
Methodists and Baptists and different preachers who would were part
of the Western expansion movement, and they would there were
circuit preachers, and you would have like a Methodist guy
who would get on his horse and he would ride
out to the westward moving you know, families and so
forth who probably didn't have a minister. And so the
minister would come maybe once a month that he would
come and preach his healthfire sermon and that he wouldn't
ride his horse aw to the next colony or whatever.
And this is also influential in American revivalism. And so
revivalism is very important for charismaticism and also very important
for ultimately accumenism. So you're on the right track, I
would say, John, and so all of these movements collide,
but they're also very useful from the perspective of social engineering.
And I would cite as perfect proof of that the
Berkeley lecture of Aldus Suxley. In that talk, Aldus actually says,
you know what we're going to do in the future
when we social engineer everybody. He says, we're actually going
to borrow the techniques of the revivalist preachers and the
fear tactics of someone like Jonathan Edwards and Methodist preachers
and so forth John Wesley, and we're going to actually
use those fear and terror tech techniques of the pastor
in the government. And so what Huxley is telling you
there is that the war on terror is pretty much
like you know, Jesse duplanis or Benny hen banging his
banging his fist up on the podium right and telling
you you're going to help. So just an interesting side
note there if you look up the Huxley lecture. But yeah,
so modernism has all an influence from all those strands
in the Roman Catholic communion. If this is a very
fascinating story too, because I know that you guys would
probably have the perspective that Rome was always controlled. I
don't take that view, having experienced Catholicism for a good time,
I think that Rome had a lot of power, temporal
power especially, and wanted to maintain it. And if you
look at, for example, the history of the Republic of Italy,
you'll have periods where Pious the Ninth, who actually shared
a lot of the Masonic and socialist and republican ideals
as a youth, as he when he became the pope.
This is like eighteen nineties or so, eighteen eighties and nineties,
the revolution turned on him and the Pope was actually
walled up in the Vatican, scared to come out because
the revolutionaries were going to behead them or something. This
is what resulted in the calling of the Vatican One,
where there was papal and fallibility. Anyway, a little bit
prior to this, or excuse me, a little bit after this,
was a pope by the name of Leo the thirteenth,
and Leo the thirteenth heard about the movements of Masonry
in different countries to not just get rid of monarchs
and to establish republics, but also to get rid of
the Church. And so I do think that there was
a real historical battle between Masonry and Roman Catholicism and
ultimately most Christian and mainline churches. And so in each
of the different churches that the battle plays out differently.
But in Roman Catholicism you have kind of an outright
battle with French Revolution and so forth, and you have
a whole string of people and cyclicals issued against Masonry.
And I would argue that it is mainly through the
Jesuits that the free Masonic ideals really gained sway and
power in the Roman Catholic Church. And that is why
the Jesuits would be instrumental in liberation theology with Marxist
ties and so forth. And Marxism of course has ties
ultimately to Freemasonry and Illuminism, and so the Jesuits pioneer
not just a liberation theology, but also a kind of
a rival to the papacy. And this is why when
you look at the history of the relationship of the
papacy to the heads of the Jesuit order, you will
find a back and forth swing of power. I'm not
saying that that makes all the Postes good and all
the Jesuits bad. I'm just saying that this is, you know,
what I get from church history as I've researched it.
So there'll be times where where the Jesuits were suppressed,
and there'll be times where they were hailed as you know,
heroes of the church, and so forth. You would have
traditions saying that, you know, Jesuits can't be pope, and
so forth and so on. And so what Leo the
thirteenth discovered was that there was a Masonic plot to
no longer destroy the papacy, but actually to use it.
And this is a famous document called the ultav Indita. Now,
certainly people would debate the authenticity of the altave Indeta
lodge and so forth. It's plans inasmuch as it promised,
it proposed the idea to co opt the papacy, not
destroy it, and to use it to bring in a
new religion, a new world religion in fact. And you
can actually read the altave Indiza documents on a book
on that by John Venari, I believe, And then you
can also read Leo wrote a famous and cyclical called
Humanum and Janus about masonry. So I believe that that
was a real war, and there were different factions, and
there's always been different factions in the papacy and the
cardinals and so forth. And I would say that by
the twentieth century you have pretty much a complete victory
of the New Old Order Masonic power over the papacy,
and that came to the flowering at Vatican two. Vatican
two is going to be very important for this because
that is a humanism in the Roman Church having its
complete victory. Now, so I'm moving up a little bit.
By the time that Ntedict the fourteenth i believe, or
fifteenth one of the two, you have a beginning of
a crack in the papal perspective on Acumenism and the
Western globalist so to speak. Prior to this they've been
very critical of it. And Benedict the fifteenth, whichever guy is,
the time of World War One in the League of Nations,
he says, oh, you know what, maybe the League of
Nations is a good thing. So prior to this, the
papacy have been very critical of Americanism and American policies
and Western democratic policies generally speaking. Now they started to
crack on it. Then you have a belief. His successor
was Pious the eleventh, who wrote a famous and cyclical
called Mortalium animal and in this document he addresses the
ecumenical movement explicitly. This is around nineteen twenty eight or so,
and he says that this is a complete destruction of
the Christian religion. So it's starting to make it it's
starting to make its encroachment into Roman Catholicism. Even in
the twenties, you had a famous document by previous pope
I should have mentioned called Pachindi Dominici gregis of Pious
the tenth, and this is a famous and cyclical that
addresses modernism in total and there he calls it the
complete destruction of the Christian religion as well. Or the
reason Pius the tenth is relevant is that for Roman
Catholics he's one of the last popes to be declared
a saint. So the in cyclical of Pius the tenth
would be considered, you know, to have a special authority
for Roman Catholics. This is all abandoned by the time
of John the twenty third, Right, Pius the twelve, this
is like in the forties and fifties is generally believed
to be kind of the last quasi traditional pope. John
the twenty third comes along and he writes a famous
and cyclical called pacham in Terras, which is about the
relationship of the world and economics to the Church. And
it's the first paper and cyclical to kind of call
for a global government. So this is sixties. And then
you have the calling of Vatican Two, which would be
hugely influential for the whole the Catholic world. And there
a Vatican Two, you have the blessing of the ecumenical movement.
You have the complete reversal of what had been said
even back in the twenties and thirties, complete reversal. Two. Yes,
now it's good. Now the un is good. We have
to follow the dictates of the UN. It's all good.
Ecumenism is good, etcetera, etcetera. So that's kind of a
brief my perspective on the Roman Catholic Communion in the
last one hundred years and what happened with them. Thing
happened in the Greek Orthodox Church. You have in the
Orthodox world as a whole, Greek Orthodoxy surrenders, begins to
surrender because they have an actual Masonic patriarch in Greece
by the name of Malicius. Milicius Metaxas Metaxakis, excuse me.
It was the patriarch of Constantinople, a Greek guy from
nineteen twenty one to twenty three, and he was openly
a member of a Mosonic lodge. He was a member
of the Harmonia Lodge in the Grand Lodge of Greece,
and the Grand Lodge of Greece's own website cites him
as a member. So this is not a conspiracy theory.
Now why is this relevant. Well, one thing that he
did was begin this process that would become a kind
of a controversy in the Orthodox world of changing the calendar.
Now that might not sound like a big deal, but
for a person who has a Catholic or an Orthodox perspective,
you know, the day that you celebrate Easter and stuff
like that is important to you. So the idea of
a complete change in these things is could be very upsetting,
especially to you know, kind of the more simple believers
of you know, your mom and your pop types who
don't really care about theology, but they're used to you know, oh,
we have Easter this way. It's always been that way
when I was a kid. You know, this is how
it is.
Speaker 2: And one of the things, and you're real quick when something.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying to see you, I'm saying this
to the audience. You know, we're not in any way
critiquing people's belief systems or what it is that they
hold beer to them in this particular time period. Now,
this is kind of going over a history of it
and then looking at change in the belief systems as
the mechanism for a feeling change in other areas of life.
And so if you can work about change in the religion,
you can bring about change in culture, you could bring
about change economically. It's changed all over the entire spectrum
at this particular time in history, in the early part
of the twentieth century. The twentieth century is the century
of change, absolutely so. And so that's what you're getting here,
is you're seeing a fundamental change. It's an interesting thing too,
because as you see these fundamental changes in people belief systems,
it is a very subtle change in the belief systems,
and it's changes where people are not even being made
aware of that. There's changes going on where it's where
your pastor is saying something one day and then the
next day he's saying Oh yes, I think a global
government is a good thing, and it's kind of like
something that just passes like a fart in church.
Speaker 3: Yeah now, and so so that's I just wanted to
interject that this study here, you know about you know
what Chris and I have been talking about California, and
then this particular niche of it with religion is to
show that modernism of itself is fostering change in the
twentieth century.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and it's intimately tied into Darwinism. That's not a
conspiracy theory. That is, if you look at modernists, thinkers,
and writers in any of these different fields, whether it's
religion or academia, textual studies, education. Just finished a book
on the history of American education, and it's full of
quotes of all the sort of founding fathers, so to speak,
of American public education, and they all have the exact
same Darwinian view of process and change. Nothing is true,
nothing remains because everything is subject to the ultimate principles
of Darwin and they all say that like explicitly. And
so this spills into religion as well. And the reason
I mentioned the calendar is not to bring up some
boring point, but The reason that the Orthodox started changing
their calendar was because they wanted to be in line
with the pope, which historically, if you don't know that,
the Eastern Orthodox Church disagrees with the idea of people
and fallibility, so they're two different churches. But there was
this movement called Acumenism, which said, hey, why don't we
just get together, Let's put aside the differences nothing. And
it might think, well, well, who cares about a calendar, Well,
the calendar itself may not be an issue of salvation,
but that's not the point. The point is that the
ideology of change was such that it was moving everything
into a convergence, not based on truth or falsity, but
on social engineering. And that's really what it's about. Because
the patriarchs that we want to be back with Rome,
forget the theology. Let's just do whatever it takes to
merge everyone. And this is what happened at Vatican two
in the Roman Catholic Church, where they did the exact
same thing. They said, let's all adopt a new calendar,
let's forget the differences, let's all come together, which sounds
all nice and warm and fuzzy, but that's not what
it's about it's not about being nice and wrmon fuzzy.
This is all at the behest of monetary elites who
are putting the funding behind all of this. Right, So,
you have the World Council of Churches established by the
Rockefellers National Council Churches in the US, and this is
these groups all receive money from the same sources, all
the usual suspects carnegiese, Rockefellers, Morgan, et cetera, et cetera.
And this is really their means by which they're going
to steer the religious sector of society. And it's all
one hundred percent documented. It's in the Rockefeller's biography by
Collier and Horowitz, which is all authorized. David Rockefeller talks
about it openly. And it's not just the Rock Dollers.
And there's a lot of interests involved in this, the
Pentagon on the government, you know, they're interested in having
their agents in place in different churches. But so yeah,
so all of the strands that we've mentioned, I think
it all come together to produce the idea of a
super religion, a super megalithic New World religion. And that's
one hunder true. And you have plenty of writers in
every different tradition talking about it and warning about it.
So you know, I could give you a list of
twenty books on that as well. An interesting topic too
that proves this is again one of the usual suspects.
Altu Suxley wrote a whole book on this and it's
called the Perennial Philosophy. So you could actually class obviously
kind of in the tradition of traditionalism as it's called,
or perennialism, and this would be people like a rennagan On,
Alexander Dugan, Rama, Kumar Slami and so forth. And this
is the idea of blending all the religions together. And
so that's what Huxley says in the book print a Philosophy,
says the new world religion will be all religions blended together,
and that's where we need to go. And he also
explicitly says that what has to be gotten rid of
is the idea of distinctions of differences. That you have
your tradition that you that you can carry on, and
all that's going to be done away with, he says,
so that all individuals can meld into the absolute. And
this is what we see the UN promoting. That's why
he was, you know, foundational in Unesco and his family.
This is why the Rockefellers are promoting, I mean, excuse
of the rum Catholic Church begins promoting the UN after
formerly saying it was evil. Right, So so there you go.
I mean that I apologize for being so long winded there.
Speaker 2: But I actually I wanted to bring some whip. I
wanted you to talk about. I'm sure you will. Are
you familiar with Reverend Austin who was one of the
first Rockefeller funded preachers.
Speaker 1: That's who I met, is that he was the Riverside
Church guy. That's what I meant earlier I couldn't think
of the name.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's the one who who wrote a he
wrote a sermon that came out and said that we
got to get rid of all of the old, old
ways and old ideas. And then Rock John b. Rockfeller said, well, yeah,
that sounds good. We need to make him ahead of
the Riverside Church and you know, promote that idea. And
then the Rockefeller's funded the printing of that sermon and
had it sent out to like every church in the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, And.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's how it's done. Another and then so so
another thing that's fun. You know, let me read a
little I just wanted to read a little line out
of this book. And if anybody is actually interested in
what we're talking about here, there's a good book that
kind of sums a lot of things up having to
do with a particular niche of this called the Prosperity Gospel.
And it's called Blessed by the author Kate Bohler, And
and it's kind of just a it's a layman summary
of this big, huge subjects here. But Professor Bowley here
she writes, uh, she's she's talking about the new thoughts
mind power, and this is what we're going to get
into here in a minute. The historian of metaphysics, Catherine
Albany's christened it mental magic for its use of vision, imagination, affirmation,
affirmative press, and in interiority that focused on self mastery.
With Albany is called mental magic. We will call mind
power because it's discourse of control n FCS and FC
calls on the role of thought and speech. Victorian America
was a hotbed of mind power, bursting the trans and
demolism spiritualism Freemasonry, Christian science, and a particular interest here
an option of Christian science called new thought. Out of
this miasma came the thinkers who nurtured a particular species
of mind power, planting the seeds of the present day
prosperity gospel. Then we moved forward into the nineteen fifties
and one beginning of the World Council of Churches and
a particular pastor coming out of New York where the
Rockfellers promote things, and that would be mister Roman Vincent Peel.
And there's a big history on the back side of
what mind power and what became known as positive thinking.
Call the Norman Vincent Peel's book The Power of Positive Thinking.
There's a myriad of of shuckers and hivers and hucksters
and you know.
Speaker 1: Yes, like Schueler would kind of be his successor.
Speaker 2: Right, But I'm saying like before that, even before that,
in the nineteen hundreds and twenties and thirties, there were
all these like the guys you see jumping around on
TV in the eighties, nineties and today, there were guys
like that back in the twenties pushing, pushing mind power
and word of faith. And things like that, and people
don't even realize that a lot of the same things
they believe today in Christianity and prosperity God will have
absolutely nothing to do with anything with Christianity. It literally
was crafted in the early nineteen hundreds and it comes
along into this new age idea that people still get
pushed on today with self help books, that you can
speak your reality into existence, the manifest your reality. And
that was all part of Christianity and prosperity gospel, where
you know, you don't just pray for stuff, you speak,
you command God's power to make things happen. And then
the Rockefellers and the industrialists in general, including Carbigie and
all that, they funded the idea of the a prosperity
gospel in a sort of a different way where it
was all had to do with hard work and dedication,
the dedication to your to working hard and being a
hard working American because that's what they wanted their workers
to be in their factories. Yeah, and so they paid
their creatures to equate godliness and righteousness with hard work,
and so that became a staple of Americana as time
went on. Even though once again there has absolutely nothing
to do with the origins of Christianity whatsoever, and it
was tagged onto that and has stuck with us ever since.
Speaker 1: Yes, Axe Baber's book on this. Although I would not
obviously consider myself any kind of old line German socialist,
Max Baber's book on the Protestant work ethic is accurate
and he's right to connect it to Puritanism. Interesting you
mentioned that about the hard work and all that and
being a good slave to the global capitalists, because that
is also influenced by a Puritanical Calvinist tradition, again going
back to the New Light and old Light Presbyterians and
American Revivalism. And so I remember when I was in
high school, I used to work at a paint store
and this weird guy that lived in town. I think
it was a contractor, I don't know. He saw me
reading philosophy one day when I was I don't know,
nineteen twenty, he started bringing me books, and believe it
or not, for what For a reason, this guy would
bring me books out of the school of thought of
what you're talking about, right, So I remember one day
he's like, you read that arm and Man's Pale. I
was like, Nah, I don't really care about that. I'm
gonna bring you a book. So he started to bring
me that. He brought me a book back guy named
Vernon Howard, and he Vernon Howard is one of these guys,
like you're talking about the New Thought self awareness movement.
A lot of this would of course be found a
fundamental for the coming New Age movement. And so he
brought me like Krishna Murty, who, by the way, I
was trying to think of who it was that was
formative in the early beginnings of a humanism, and it
was Jidu Krishna Murty.
Speaker 2: He's one of the yeah, friend California.
Speaker 1: So this yeah, so this weird contractor would just like
every month he could come up and bring me some
book from like you know, self help, weird stuff from
like nineteen thirty or forty. And this is where you
get into Gerdjieff, right, and the fourth way Gerdjieff would
be very influential for a lot of these guys that
you're talking about. But the Gurgia stuff is weird because
it also kind of has a lot of occult influences
transnow meditation type stuff. But really what gerdev was doing
was just trying to create you know, I think his
own religion blending a bunch of stuff. You know, I've
got a new way to do it. You know, I'm
a mix of a Roman Catholic monastic and a Yogi
and a fuck here, and it's all blended into you know,
a new new package for you. And that's also what
you know, the ecumenical movement is because it doesn't have
any really real substance. It's all about do your thing,
but be sure that your thing you're doing is in
accord with what the Globo state is okay with? Right,
So you can have your little you know, ceremony or whatever,
just so long as you're going along with you know,
the main strategies of the system.
Speaker 2: Well, you're allowed to have fundamentals in your religion as
long as your fundamentals are accept everybody, even if they
don't believe in the same thing you do. So if
you're one of your fundamentals is you know, I don't
accept your religion or your belief system, then that part
of your religion needs to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it has to be relt visit exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 4: It's interesting how the the prosperity gospel to name it
and claim it and all that. Uh. If you think
about freemasonry, a lot of from what I understand, a
lot of people will get into freemasonry as a way
to uh make you know, business connections and to get
sort of a foothold in business and you know, and
get some advantage there. And it it's interesting that uh
so much of so called it's called Christianity. It's not
it's not Christianity, but it's it focuses in on that.
It's it's about I know I've heard this before different people.
You know, you talk and you get you get the
gist of what's going ox. I never really when I
used to go to church. I didn't attend any of
these big churches or mega churches or anything like that.
But talking to people that did, you always get the
impression that, yeah, they used the whole you know, going
to church as a way to network, a way to
get you know, dredge up business and to connect with people.
And I think in a lot of ways what that
does too, it makes uh it you know, to take Christianity,
turn it into something else and turn to the focus,
uh make it in line with you know, our our
modern consumerist, materialist culture that it gave it like its
own sort of different uh, relevancy in in the in
the system, you know, where it wouldn't have had that
if it was it wasn't for that. Yeah, so that
you know, everything in our culture and society is is
you know, centered around money and the entertainment of mind
and material goods, and uh, yeah, the churches have to
align with that to one degree or another. But yeah,
it's also interesting too how that is part of like witchcraft,
you know, and and that sort of thing is like
you it's just the idea that you're gonna appeal to
the spirit realm to get the spirits to do you
favors and stuff, you know, like like the way they
throw curses on people and they do stuff but whatever,
something that would get them an advantage over other people.
Well here that's kind of like the idea behind it.
Speaker 1: Here's an interesting thing.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: One of the aspects that's central of to the to
the ecumenical idea is that you no longer try to
convert anyone to your to your philosophy. And Krishna Murdy,
as we mentioned earlier, I wrote this essay called Three
Pious Egos and it's the idea of how egotistical it
is to dare to convert someone to your ideology. What
everyone seems to miss in terms of the obvious presuppositional
contradiction here is that the ecumenist is converting everyone to
his non conversion philosophy. So he's everybody, he's every bit
the egotistical dogmatist by saying that you're wrong for trying
to convert people. So as I read, you know, Krishna Murdy,
I'm looking at him talking about how egotistical are for
people wanting to convert them. This is a whole apologetic
treatise trying to convert me to his opinion.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you need to convert people into an organization that
doesn't go out and try to convert you.
Speaker 1: And that's literally And so you know this is George
Weigel is one of these big time mainline Catholic so
called writers. He's written big fat books on John Paul's
second stuff, and you know, he's always tuting this stuff.
And you know, he wrote an opinion piece about actually
connecting Catholicism and Pentecostalism and charismaticism as the means by
which the ecumenical movement could really spread because to reach
more and more of a mass audience, you're not going
to do it through putting out tracks and lectures and sermons.
It's going to happen through people having subjectives, so called
experiences that they think are divine and so charismaticism is
a great vehicle for that, right, converting people over to
this ecumenical sledge of believe nothing, I guess relativism. What
the irony there, of course, is that, as we said,
these are actual engineered movements. They're one run by people
who a lot of these new thought type people will
gurge you of these kinds of people. You know, these
are people running in the circles of you know, the
monetary elite, who you know, are all about social engineering.
So what I'm saying is that the promises of ecumenism
are hollow. They don't lead to you know, all this
tolerance and whatever glowing hippie utopian ideals they're they're promoting. Uh,
it's all part of the one world global state. And
as I said again, you can look at Huxley's Perennial
Philosophy book to see that. Yeah, and then they say,
these people will even say you know, in the coming future,
we're going to have to deal with the dissenters. You know,
they're going to have to be dealt with. Right, So
much for tolerance, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, doesn't sound very tolerant.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the biggest pushers of the economical like
it a is Rick Warren.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Now that's got to be some kind of
CI think.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, oh yeah. And so we're you know,
now here's where, Here's where. And I want to touch
us touch on this on a later on a later episode.
And Jay, you're welcome to join us again if when
we start getting into southern California, Jesus people and evangelicism,
because we're going to talk about that in the future.
But see right here in southern California, and all of
these churches are within a couple of miles of each other.
Strangely enough, is TBN Calbred Chapel, Megachurch, Mothership, a vineyard,
and saddleback Church where we're uh pastors out to the
twenty thousand people at once.
Speaker 1: So I note one of the the Calvary Chapel which
it originates to California. DA mc allen points out it
as one of the Laurel Canyon, guys who started the
Calfrey Chapels.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's uh, well there there's I know a
lot about that, and I'm kind of saving it for
a particular absence. I'm not even going to talk about
that yet, okay.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 2: So all all of those particular churches are kind of
are kind of offsheets of Calvary Chapel. They kind of
started that all except for TVN. But but Rick Warren
of course hosted a debate between John McCain and Barack
Obama at Saddleback Church in Airline, and then he went
on to give the inaugural speech for Obama, and then
he goes to DeVos, hangs out at the World Economic
Form and then you can see video clips of him,
you know, saying that he's buddies with the Islamic leaders
and that they're signing u N agreements for covenants between
the faiths and things like this, and and so what
I've talked about with christ before or with you know,
just people who I know who are church goers. I
am not myself a churchgoer, but most people who go
to church, they don't even go to church because they're
into reading texts or understanding the Bible. They kind of
want to go to church because it feels good, you know.
And they're not bad people by any stretch of the world.
They're not bad. It's just they do something that's kind
of been passed down as a tradition, and it's kind
of a blind tradition. So they're not really into learning
about the Bible, or if they are into learning about
the Bible, they only go as far as what their
preacher tells them. So somebody like Rick Warren, who wrote
the most popular Christian book of all time, The Purpose
Driven Life, I mean the title of The Purpose Driven Life,
it should be on the self help aisle in Barnes
and Nobles. Right, Yes, that has nothing to do with
I mean even in the title, has nothing to do
with Christianity whatsoever. And then half the time, most of
these guys, including warn himself, they don't even have a
Bible on their pulpit when they're giving their sercums.
Speaker 1: The exact same way. Yeah, yeah, it's very very bizarre
the history of the megachurch, and I believe Saddleback has
kind of gone talk connections as well. For my research,
you can look at Paul Crouch he's been in trouble
with the FBI for money laundering. Not that I'm saying
that the government's good. I'm just saying that rival mafia
is right. Yeah, these people are quite obviously dubious, but
I think they experiment with different things too. So you
had in the last fifteen ten fifteen years this movement
called the Emergent Church. And this is weird because it's
an attempt to blend the denominational slash megachurch with some
cafeteria style stuff from maybe Orthodox liturgy or Catholic liturgy.
So you might have a calendar and you might the
guy might decide to wear a robe or something like that,
but you're all going to meet in an auditorium and
wear jeans, and we're right. So it's a weird mix
of stuff. And then you start watching the heads of
this movement and they start saying, oh, yeah, we actually
disagree with a lot of what's in the Bible. We
don't really believe that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And if you trace back the Emergent movement, I spent
about a day one day researching this and look to me,
like this is coming out of Oxford. That's of course
the you know, Central locale of I believe that the
inner Party of the UH, for lack of a better terms,
of real world controlling illuminati. So what I think is
that they kind of throw out these different things like
the megachurch and the these different trends in Christianity, like
you know, Christian hip hop and all this kind of junk,
which is just like a mimic of the so called
secular stuff. Right, it's like a cheap copy of that stuff.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's it's all marketed in exactly the same way
as the mainline stuff, right. It looks exactly the same.
It's not really anything substantially different. So that maybe throwing
Jesus here and there, and I think it's, yeah, it's
all it's all a scam. It's it's just as much
a scam as anything else that you know, you guys
talk about. So, yeah, all of these movements seem to
be dubious, and they tie into homeland security quite often.
You know, these mega churches, emergent churches are full of
people who are informists for homeland security. There have been
plenty of articles and mainstream news reports about that as well.
Speaker 2: You know what, one of the biggest seats of modernist
architecture is.
Speaker 1: Well, what it could be a lot of things.
Speaker 2: What one of the biggest feats that you can attribute
to modernist architecture the Crystal Cathedrals.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, yeah, Robert, there you go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Philip Johnson was the woman who designed the Crystal Cathedral.
And then a guy we talked about quite often in
this the guy who built the original church for the
Chris Cathedral was built, was Richard Neutra, who builds all
of the other stuff that we've talked about. But yeah,
that's another thing that ties into this, and this is
a good point to bring it up, because there's actually
a connection between modernism and modernist Christianity modernism in the
sense of how we've been discussing it, because you start
to see in the nineteen fifties you start to see
this and you see this in the Catholic Church as well,
where you start seeing these churches starting to be updated
in the way that they're built, and they're all built
in modernist fashion. They've totally and post modernist fashion. They've
totally done away with the church and the steeple in
the classical sense, and now you've got, you know, modern
buildings where some of them don't even have crosses on them,
or you don't even that it's a church. It actually
looks more like a civic center.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the the Catholic version is what you're talking about
where and I know at a bit about all that.
And this was especially.
Speaker 4: Say what, oh you you were breaking up there real bad.
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah, this happens after Vatican Two, especially in the
Catholic Church, where the norm for the architecture becomes all
this hideous, uh, space station looking stuff. And what it
looks like is the old Soviet style architecture of what
they thought the future, like the retro futurism of the Soviets.
It's what a lot of that post Vatican too, Catholic
churches look.
Speaker 4: Like you looked into cause cosmism, Yes, I take that.
I'm saying that right.
Speaker 1: When it's posted on that And uh, there's some interesting
articles at us sold the East. Well, there's a woman
named no Natalia Rtanina and she wrote a couple of
interesting articles that deal with Russian cosmism. I forget the
exact name of the article off the top of my head.
I can link it or email it to you guys.
But but yeah, Russian futurism and cosmism would have its
own sort of weird style of architecture. And you know
a lot of these Vatican two Postvatican Two churches in
the Catholic Church took on that architecture absolutely right. And
in the Protestant world, the corollary, I guess would be
the nobnominational strip mall or the big metal building or
the church that looks like a sports theater.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they have one of those down here on the
corner from me, not too far. It's like a big Uh.
I don't know if it's called a megachurch. I don't think.
I don't know if it's that big, but it's a
really big it's like a compound, But yeah, it does.
It looks like what you just got to describe, and
it's it's just like pre fab and a big, huge,
gigantic parking lot that they bought from a defunct grocery
store that used to be there. And uh, it's they're
like charismatic. I guess that's what you classify it. And
I think the think about the charismatic movement from and
from what I gather, it's like really had a had
a big research resurgence within the last I don't know
how many years, twenty years or so.
Speaker 1: Especially in Africa and Latin America.
Speaker 4: By the way, Oh really okay, see, yeah, that it's
it's it's really it's really big. Well, I mean they
got this uh, this big compound down here and and
then I don't I don't know how many members, but
they have like two different services. Uh, so they can
accommodate everybody. And they already have those like huge gigantic
parking lot, so they with all that, they still have
like two separate services. But I was just going to
mention something about the uh charismatic movement and like if
you do what Rick Warren, which is he's admitted to
being a member of the Council Council on Foreign Relations.
By the way, they talk about getting direct revelation from God.
You know, that's probably what you know John's mentioning. You
know he gets up and preaches and doesn't even have
the Bible. Well, it's this idea that you know, you're
getting like direct tapped into you know, the Holy Spirit
and God and and you're getting direct revelation. And that's
that's an idea in in you know, the charismatic movement especially.
I think that is what you see now a lot
where you know, like like like you're talking about where
people don't really are into reading the Bible or knowing
anything about the Bible really, and that I think that's uh,
at least on my base, on my experience, I gather
that just about anybody I've ever spoken to who doesn't
really know a whole lot about the Bible and they
don't really read the Bible a whole lot. I mean,
you find exceptions here and there, but generally speaking, it's
it's more to do like you'll hear people talk about, well,
you know, God told me this, God told me that
God's moving in my life, He's working in my life,
and it's all this kind of, uh, this concept of
this you know, spirit influence that they're having. They'll make
reference to the Bible, but it's it's not like they're
directing our life according to the Bible. It's more this
idea of this direct revelation from God.
Speaker 1: Absolutely and this, oddly enough, is all directly out of
the suspects we mentioned earlier, right theosophy. Theosophy and anthroposophy
are the foundations of the ecumenical movement. And you can
go back to Madam Wolvatsky who talked about this. We
mentioned Krishna Murdi under any Bassan, so he was involved
in the Theosophical Society, you know, a big guy in
the ecumenical movement. So in the idea there is that,
you know, my tapping into right is what is what's
guiding me into whatever force that that might be, whether
it's my mind or you know, demons or something who knows.
But but that's the problem, is that there's no guideline
by which we can determine, you know, the source of
these of these experiences. And when I was eighteen or
nineteen started reading the Bible, I visited some charismatic churches
to just check it out. You know, it's kind of like, well,
reading the Bible, you know which church is right, I'm
gonna you know, taste all thirty two flavors or thirty
two thousand flavors, but I'm gonna go see which ones are,
you know, check it out. And I went to a
whole bunch of different churches to get an idea. And
what you noticed in the charismatic churches is that that's
absolutely the case. There's you know, very little Bible literacy,
and everybody's just kind of looking for and waiting for
this next experience, which probably ninety five to ninety nine
percent of the time is just people's emotions that they're
mistaking for the so called spirit.
Speaker 2: I would say, yeah, a lot of things too. Is
you know one thing you guys brought up I wanted
to mention because you know, I was raised in the
throes of the charismatic movement out here, and my parents
attended Calvy Chapel and I went to private school with
a lot of kids, some kids who were also pastors,
children from local churches. And the one thing I noticed,
like you said, like these churches take on these postmodernist
structures when they're built. And when that movement first started
out in the sixties, the idea behind it was was
something that you could probably get on board with at
a certain level where it's like, Hey, you don't need
to go here and go there, We're going to do
our own thing. You can come to my house and
we'll have Bible study, right, And that's how that kind
of started out. It's like, hey, come over to my house.
I mean, that's what my parents used to do. They
come over to the house, we'll have people over, we'll
have Bible study and and we you know, we don't
need to go to a church to do that or
you know whatever. And then it then from that point
it turned into well, I can you know, we can
rent this warehouse and we can have the church there
until we're able to get space. But then once the
people can afford to have the church built, they don't.
They purposely don't build it like an old church, right,
they don't build they don't build it in a traditional fashion.
They build it like, you know, like you guys said,
like in a postmodernist fashion, where it looks nothing like
a church, it has no traditional ties to anything else.
And so people have been brought up.
Speaker 3: In a.
Speaker 2: In a fashion today where they don't know anything about
what took place before and they don't know how, you know,
anything else looks and all of them. And if you
if you were to say to somebody today, hey, the
majority of the stuff that you believe actually comes out
of the theosophy, Yeah, they would they would, they would
they would be mad at you because they wouldn't believe you, right, Like, hey,
you're talking about communing with the Holy Spirit, and things
like that, Like people didn't talk that way, you know,
prior prior to the eighteen eighties, okay, and the only
people to talk like that were theosophists and spiritualists and
mentalists and things like that. And you know, interestingly enough,
around the same time I made this connection, I was
thinking about that, this is all around the same time
that Mesmer's stuff came out with so that that all
plays into into you know, the falling down and you know,
all I can you know, the blind can see, the
lane can walk type stuff, And there's a whole series
of that type of stuff as well, especially in the
nineteen twenties with the tent revivals and then well then
also also big time after the Depression, because people were
looking for reasons why the depression happened, not because you know,
the rich elite stole everything. It was because God was
danning America and telling them to turn back to God.
And that's what the preachers were saying, and so people
were looking to churches and so that a lot of
the preachers gained a stronghold during that particular time period.
Speaker 1: It makes me think of that, what's that Steve Martin
movie from the nineties I think where he's the con
man preacher. Remember that Leap.
Speaker 2: Of Faith, Leap of Faith, Leap of Faith. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
there's a there's a series of those stuff. And see
that's the thing that that's too bad about, you know,
people like Robert Kilton, even my favorite even my favorite
televangelist because if you want to talk about it, a
direct connection to God. Yeah. Uh but yeah, see those
guys obviously, like like you said, those guys are on
are on government table to act like a bunch of
koops and make Christians look bad. And then when you
see a movie like the uh like Leap of Faith
and the other one, what was the one with Robert
Huball where he.
Speaker 1: Was yeah yeah, where he he kills somebody and remember that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So there's the there's there's Hollywood critiquing Christianity there, and
and they're critiquing in the fashion you know, like like oh,
look at these bad Christians, are you know, idiots from
believing the stuff? Right? And so do you have this
dialectic going on there? And so anyways, uh, unfortunate. I
was just going to finish real quick here and then
I'll leave you guys have the rest of the discussion. Unfortunately,
growing up in the nineteen eighties and with one foot
in Christian culture and one foot being persuaded by the
worldly culture. If you're going to listen to a heavy
metal band in the nineteen eighties, you're not going to
listen to a Christian heavy metal band. And the Christian
culture all it did was try to any like you
were saying, all did was trying to anyway. Everything on
the radio or everything looks like like they've come out
with books that were kind of like Stephen King will
it's like a book. There was a book that was
very famous in the eighties with Christians called This Present Darkness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Frank pretty.
Speaker 2: Frank pretty, and then he's all hooked into the Council
for National Policy and everything. But yeah, so we're gonna
write a Stephen King type novel to have it, but
it's gonna have a Christian it's gonna have a you know,
one foot in Christianity sort of peel through the Christians
because Stephen King is so popular at this time period.
And then we're gonna Christian death metal bands. There were
Christian death metal bands in the nineties.
Speaker 4: You know, Christian vampire novels, now I just looked that up.
Speaker 2: I guess I guess it doesn't I guess it doesn't
work if you staff, if you, you know, pull the
cross out for him.
Speaker 4: Well it should, right, I mean that's the way.
Speaker 2: Well la cross of the repel then actually lets them
into the.
Speaker 4: House apparently is such a thing. Wow, just selling that out, well,
just take I'm sorry, Oh no, I was just gonna
say it. Just take takes what's already kind of popular
in culture and puts a Christian angle on it and
then repackages it, puts it out there films, you know,
but you know the same action thrillers, Christian action thrillers.
Speaker 1: Christians behind garbage with the cage, right, yeah, y well.
The what's interesting about the architecture aspect too that I
wanted to mention was that it's curious to me that
the idea in uh, you know, the early Church, why
they started building cathedrals and uh, you know, big edifices
that were an ornate. It wasn't just some sort of
notion of being ostentatious or whatever. It was because you know,
if you lived in a hamlet or a village or
something like this, the most architecture was built that way
to begin with, in the sense of durability and longevity.
So the idea was because it was I guess I
would argue more traditional. The notion was that you're you're
building this church not just for you, You're building it
for subsequent generations, right, so your children and your children's
children and so forth are going to be worshiping at
this same building. It therefore makes sense to make it
out of brick and stone sort to last, you know, right.
So that's and that's contrasted to this idea of progeny
and building things for the future, is contrasted drastically with
the consumerist, you know, transient aspect of the way the
churches that we're talking about are built where they're built,
especially in Protestantism and non Denominationalism and Evangelicalism, they're just
these like big metal buildings that you know, are not
going to last.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like uh yeah, the prefab stuff, and they could
throw it up real quick, and yeah that's uh yeah,
I've taken note of that.
Speaker 1: So it's not a position that is even concerned or
thinking about, you know, where are our descendants going to
be worshiping?
Speaker 4: You know, just like the rest of the culture. I mean,
shopping centers are the same way. I mean, you go
look at the shopping center. It's like, okay, that's going
to be gone with the first strong win that comes
through here. You know, it's it's just not gonna be
something there's going to last very long. But you know
it's just uh yeah. And now church is the same thing. Yeah,
that's a good point.
Speaker 1: I think about what it's focusing on, the immediate here
and now, and that makes sense with this idea of
you know, the loss of belief in the eternal, and
I think that's directly connected to the notion of something
being true with the capital T meaning you know, objectively, consistently,
always true, eternally true. Is contrasted with pragmatism, which is
the only school of philosophy that America has produced, which
makes sense with the idea of America pragmatism and the
immediate here now empiricism. This is all we got. And
you know, it's a reflection of the consumerism in the
society as a whole.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the me centered culture, the century of the self,
that whole thing. And then yeah, and you look at
how all of these institutions within the greater system are
all integrated. It's amazing. Oh yeah, it's that, you know.
The Okay, Now, the church is follows suit and then
they reflective and they of the culture at large with
whichever direction it starts to head. The churches incorporate doctrines
and theology and stuff that is reflective of the wider culture.
And I've talked about that in the past calls and stuff.
How that, yeah that I noticed that growing up and
going to church. How that was the case, you know,
or things that were deemed by the culture at large
as being bad things, and then the church would adopt
those sentiments. And then uh, but you can go back,
you know, when I was a h.
Speaker 1: A pipe or a cigarette tobacco like you mentioned.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, and you'd see the guys out, uh mainly
men out smoking during the enter the between the glass
in the Sunday school service a there'd be about a
ten minute break and then be men out there smoking.
And you know that that doesn't happen anymore. You don't
even uh wouldn't you know if you if you smoke,
you don't even let yourself be seen smoking because it's
something that's that is uh, you know, deemed as bad
by the Church. And then also like, yeah, you wouldn't
take a drink out in public or anything like that,
because that's that's seen as Unchristian or non Christian, even
though there's no prohibition against it in the Bible at all,
you know, any of those prohibitions.
Speaker 1: The Psalms even say God gave line.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, he says, let the foremahan drink to forget
his troubles.
Speaker 1: And proverbs too, he says, let the fore man have
his drink. There's a statement in Deuteronomy where God even
says that when the Israelites come together to celebrate the
feast days, he wishes that they have strong drink. So
just utterly postrous invention of some you know, some guys,
some control freak pastor who just got the idea, you
know that. And I think that goes back to Americanism,
American revivalism and the Temperance movement that was all, you know,
connected to the same idea of social engineering. Now interesting,
the Temperance movement reminds me of it comes up in
this book I just read called The Messianic Character of
American Education. And I don't agree with everything that Rush
Jenny promotes. Who's the authors, but he is kind of
he's the founder of the homeschool movement. And what's good
about this book is that he includes about several hundred
quotes from the I think he picks about twenty or
twenty five of the founding guys in American education. And
the reason this is relevant to our humunism talk is
that it's the exact same idea of Messianism, but it's
all going to be at the behest of the socialist state.
So when you look at the figures of Horace Mann,
John Dewey, JB. Watson, Edward Sheldon, Henry Barnard, there's a
there's a whole list of these character William James, the philosopher,
was influential in this.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: They have the idea, I'm not joking. This sounds extreme,
but they literally thought that public.
Speaker 6: Schooling was a messianic reality that would bring salvation to America,
and then America would then bring public.
Speaker 1: Schooling to the world, and that the whole change. Now lit'sten,
here's here's here's a quote from Horace Mann, who was
a Unitarian universalist. The public school, the common school is
the greatest discovery ever by man and he goes on
to say that through the implementation, we will create a utopia.
That's quotes from of course man, we also go on
I'm not going to read them all, but I mean
there's countless quotes where you have these founding guys saying
that the goal of education, especially John Dewey, is not
to educate or to teach a child how to learn,
but to socialize them, and by that he means to
bring them into conformity with the world state. Now, I'm
not saying that socialism and Marxism is, as we've discussed,
like a secret ideology that's going to take over the world.
It's an ideology that's promoted by the capitalist global elite,
the banking elite, so forth, corporate elite, because it destroys
the critical thinking of individuals, and that's why it's so
heavily promoted. So it's not even Marxism, because that was
primarily and economic philosophy of you know, modes of exchange
and means of production and all that. It's rather this
generic idea of sloganized, sloganeering socialism that is literally the
worldview of every every single one of the founding fathers
of American education. They all talk about it, and they
talk about it as necessary for democracy. They even say
that democracy is not just democracy, it's a salvafic way
of life.
Speaker 4: Wow, yeah, that is.
Speaker 1: Let's see which character that was that said that education
to see Carlton Washburn one of the I forget what
he did, but he's one of these founding guys. And
you see, a democracy means that America will be the
instrument through which public education will be spread to the globe.
And it's public education that is democracy, and democracy is
a Solvafic way of life. So another whilst the supposed
idea of democracy is this idea that we all equal,
we all have the same i'd vote, we all get
then equal vote, blah blah blah, egalitarianism, and that necessitates then,
oh well, if we're going to be democratic, you got
to have public schools because it's not fair to have
private schools or people learning on their own. Got to
have public schools. There's also an interesting chapter that shows
the correlation that comes out of this, which is the
idea that, well, you can't have gifted students because that
would presume some higher status and that's not fair to
everyone else. So even like back one hundred years ago,
when they were really discussing putting into place the public
education system, they were already stacking the deck against to
war against individual critical thinkers, to war against genius, to
war against gifted students, and so forth. Those are the
ones that are marked as the problem. As Merchant Russell said,
for example, But all these, all these same American education guys,
they're all by the way, and every one of them
are Darwinian, and they think that they think that we
are evolving into one big mass clump that will bring
the utopia. Now I'm not again, it's not it's not
that Marxism is the point. It's that people believe these
cloudy ideals and they act on them. And all the
founding fathers of American public schooling believed it, and they
even say that if you don't go along with this,
you're going to have to be dealt with. Hence they
were behind mandatory public schooling and the idea of truancy
and so forth.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's there. I wasn't quite aware of all
that those connections there. I you know, I was, uh,
when I when I used to go to church, I
would get into debates a lot about about the Sunday school, uh,
a whole set up in the churches, and I would,
you know, among other things, I would you know, question
stuff you know that's going on, doctrinal issues and stuff
like that, and I was just you know, I would
get into discussions with the creatures and stuff about hey,
you know, I mean, how is this, uh, you know,
remind me how this is scriptural because I don't see.
I see admonitions in the Bible to raise up your children,
but those are two the parents. That's not something that
you naturally delegate to somebody else. So so I had
a problem with the whole Sunday school concept, you know,
this principle of it. It's like, oh, well, you know,
you you turn your child over to somebody else to
bring them up in the way they should go. And
it's like, well, I don't think that's what the Bible
is talking about. I think it's admonitions of parents, really,
and uh so, yeah, I'll go round and around with
him on that, and uh, it's just the idea behind it,
and I think that's probably what you just brought up.
There had a lot to do with that being implemented
in the churches.
Speaker 1: Uh, because it's it's like kindergarten.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what it's like. And it's kind of like
a it's just a principle of the idea that like, yeah,
you even uh take your take your child and put
them in turn them over to somebody else in order
to teach them about the Bible even you know.
Speaker 1: Well, the founder of the idea of kindergarten is a
German guy, Friedrich Schrubeu, and he was borrowing his ideas
from the Prussian model of statism. And so the American
public education system, by the way, is all directly from
the Prussian state model of education, which was all collectives
and based on Hegel's philosophy of the state as the
march of God in history. Now I'm going to read
you in America, so Rubel was German. I'm going to
read you his evangelist in America a woman by the
name of what is her name, Emma Marwadel, some American
education woman. And then her horseman's sister in law is
a woman by the name of Elizabeth Peabody. This is
what Elizabeth Peabody says as she's going around promoting why
we have to have kindergarten. I'm not making this up, okay,
she says. She says kindergarten is true education because it
is a religion. It is not a vocation. It is
a vocation from God. It is the means to the millennium.
Speaker 7: Children understood leading, children understood leading in the promised millennium
of peace on earth and good will among men will.
Speaker 1: Make mankind forget the babble of confusion and it's experimenting
and enter into the mutual understanding of the Pentecost miracle.
So she literally she's saying public education, not just a
public education. When we have kindergarten everywhere, it will bring
the millennium and the reversal of Babel. It's a new Pentecost.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: Now there's hundreds of quotes like this. I know it's
hard to believe, but yeah, all of these. She goes
on to say, it's my prayer that God's will be
done on earth, and the way that we bring this
is through public education. She says, kindergarten will eradicate poverty,
it will prevent war, it will see to it that
dictators will rise no more. It will completely alter the
environment because the only she says, an the only way
that a kid could ever turn evil is because of
an evil environment. Now, what's interesting is that all of
these thinkers all have the same view that everything about
man is external. So in other words, everything that man,
all man's actions, are a result of the external stimuli
that he's received. And so this is why JB. Watson,
the founder of behaviorism, is so important to this school
because he says that the behaviorist techniques of operant conditioning,
stimulus response, deprogramming, and reprogramming repatterning. He says it will
lead to the idea of total conditioning through public schooling.
M Yeah.
Speaker 4: And if you notice, like anything that you look at,
if it's dealing with like the third world of developing
economies and stuff like that, or anything to do with
you know, international relations, anything like that, it's always like
this heavy emphasis on school Yes, like the Yeah, those
in poverty, our primary concern is like we we need
to ensure and we need to help them get schools
and get education because education in schooling is so vital
to you know, economic prosperity and developing countries and all
that stuff. And there's so much emphasis placed on schooling
and so that it's now synonymous with if you can't
attend school, that's equal to poverty, that's equal to low
quality of life, that's equal to which in a lot
of respects, if you're in this artificial system, it is true.
It's like this uh, you know, self affirming thing that
exists in our in so called civilization. But yeah, but
you'll always hear about this. This just heavy drumbeat about
you know how how important that is. It's so important
to get these young minds into the classroom environment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, And when you look at say, go to
the rock Tiller Foundation website and you pull up their
white papers on the budget and where the money's gone.
Where they which they all put up, they put it
up on there. Where does most of that money go.
It goes to education and schools in foreign countries, and
women's rights in foreign countries, which that means vaccines.
Speaker 4: And horses and yeah, breaking down the family by uh.
And I heard us in the like in Africa where
they have these micro loans and like, yeah, men don't
qualify for them. It's like mainly given to women. So
it's like you take the economic power, you turn it
over to the women. Yeah, it was a great Yeah,
And uh so, uh, I understanding full well what the
overall fallout from all that which they're realizing it now,
But you know, I mean it's it's it's showing itself now.
But yeah, see they totally understand that up front. And
that's to break apart, the family break and to destroy
the traditional culture and structure, social structure.
Speaker 1: Yes, everything has to be melded into this generic absolute,
this pomanism that Huxley talked about. Here's JB. Watson describing
his behaviorism. He says, in one sweeping assumption after another,
the behaviorist throws out the concept of both mind and
consciousness and calls them carryovers from the church dogma of
the Middle Ages. The behaviorists thinks that the soul is
a masquerade. The behaviorist finds no mind in his laboratory.
He sees it nowhere in his subject. If the behaviorists
are right in their contention that there is no mind
body problem, then it is because there is no mind,
there can be no such thing as consciousness or an
unconscious And here's the best quote. He says. Thus, prediction
and control are the essence of the heaviourism. He says,
give me a child and my world, give me the
baby and my world to bring it up, and I
will make it crawl and walk, I will make it climb,
and I will make its hands, make use of its hands,
and constructing buildings of stone or wood. I will make
it a thief, a gunman, or a dope feed I
will build you, make him death and mute. I will
build you a helen Keller. Stimulus and response, he says,
is everything. And that's of course, as many people have
pointed out, when you go to public school, you hear
the dog bells that ring in between the classes.
Speaker 4: Uh. Yeah, I've talked about this with I. Uh noticed
the U This is uh, this is a while back.
This this particular individual like their children are you know,
of course going to public school, and one of their
children come back with this like red stamp on their
hand and they was crying, like the child was like
bawling his eyes out, and I was like, what's going on?
I was like, this is this is odd? And it's
oh he got a bad stamp or something like that,
like you like, they'll the teacher put the stamp on
his hand. It was like a red stamp of some
sort to identify that he had done something wrong in
school and he had to go around with his red
stamp and I was like, wow, freaking scarlet letter and
all this shit. Yeah, it's like, holy crap, man. I mean,
I just I was a speechless. I was like, what
you'll Yeah, oh, I was just saying like his dad
didn't think anything of it. He thought it was kind
of numorous.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: The author has an insightful and this his book was
written back in nineteen sixty three, predicting what would happen
with American education system. And he says, Watson's goals now,
this is JB. Watson. The behaviors are the goals of
science today. Science aims at the creation of life itself
through biochemistry. It aims at the creation of minds through machines,
and it aims at the reconditioning of minds by medication
and drugs capable of controlling and remaking man. Science also
aims at total social engineering and control through the state.
It has even been proposed that man will one day
be wired at birth for permanent control through electrical impulse.
This was written back in nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 2: Mm.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that is seems like we're moving forward into
that with the advent of the smartphone now and uh
so it's sort of this device that is like for
so many people, it's it's it's like an extension of
their you know, personhood. So it's something that's always with them,
always referring to it, always interacting with it, and with
with with that in mind, which is you just got
through reading and then what you hear about these you
know tech these techno technology technological or technolroti or these
technologically leaks stuff that are talking about, Yeah, you know,
putting microchips in themselves, that's already happening already. Have these
kits that you can order online to self inject an
RFID tag so that you can you know, open your
doors without having to you know, drag your keys out
of your pocket and all that other great stuff. And
uh yeah, so how long does this this particular phase
have to have to be in play before you start
seeing the uh the implant that the neural implant that
directly interfaces with the brain so that you don't have
to fumble around with this piece of external equipment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would just had a conversation with my girlfriend then,
not about that. How soon is it going to be
before we start seeing this. There was an article yesterday
about Facebook is actually going to be and I was
on a boiler room conversation and somebody brought this up
a few months ago. I didn't know this, but apparently
Facebook is going to be one of the leading means
by which virtual reality is going to be implemented, believe
it or not, which I guess kind of makes sense
because there's like a billion people on Facebook, and what
they're gonna do is they're gonna start implementing virtual reality
through chat. Right, So what's gonna happen is you're gonna
go in a chat room and everybody's gonna put their
goggles on, and you're gonna be chatting with your buddies,
you know, in this virtual chat room, and you know,
you might be Marilyn Monroe, and then I guess somebody
will be Elvis, and then somebody will be a Pokemon.
Speaker 4: Or yeah, Lammy from Oterhead or.
Speaker 1: Whatever Otorhead and Johnny Depp and yeah, and so that's
what's apparently coming. And uh, there was a big mainstream
article about Facebook doing this. Trying to remember the title
of the article. Facebook's latest virtual reality. The innovation is
a big deal is.
Speaker 4: A totally hard Well, Jay, this will certainly have applications
towards education. I'm sure right, we know how important.
Speaker 1: Will be able to be taught directly. Uh, we'll be
able to stand directly at the feet of the great
scientists who discovered the bat people on the moon, and
we'll be able to look in virtual telescopes and we'll
see the bat people, the little CGI sixteen bit bat
people dancing around the moon.
Speaker 4: To shoot them with little Cansas little First, you'll.
Speaker 1: Have a duck Hunter. You'll have the gun from Nintendo
Duck Hunt that you can but you'll have to but
it's you'll have to use the reflector that they use
to balance signals that light off the moon because you've
got to get in there.
Speaker 4: It's like an extra bonus points for ricocheting and off
the reflector to the bath hut or whatever you're trying
to blow up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you've got oculus Oculus rift and then this
whatever this Facebook virtual thing is. Maybe that's oculus. I
can't remember, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know about that being something that I
keep hearing because I've heard I've heard about this years ago, right,
I mean, yeah, and I don't I don't know if
they're ever going to overcome the motion sickness thing, because
people are still talking about that. But this Oculus rift
they said, yeah, I know, it's it's fantastic, It's wonderful.
You get on it for like ten minutes, max. Because
after ten minutes, you're like, you got to run to
the toilet. You're going to put your lunch in there,
you know, because it makes people motion sick. Oh yeah,
I didn't know what around it.
Speaker 1: I thought you were going to say, you know, they've
been talking about virtual reality since the eighties and it's
not going to be here.
Speaker 4: Well, they had it. They had it in the nineties.
They had it. I remember it at some uh some
electronic show or something. I went two years ago. They
had they had a demonstration of it.
Speaker 1: In the growing up in San Diego, we used to
go to the mall and they had a VR demonstrations
in the mall that you could look in the thing.
I did it to you. You can look in the thing
and it's real cheese cheese ball max bedroom install graphics
back then. But but yeah, that's a great point. I
don't see how this would function that. You know, everybody's
going to be puking. Maybe they'll maybe they'll sell everybody
a pharmaceutical that that you.
Speaker 4: Take they don't, I don't know. Or maybe you have
to go get surgery or something, and I guess people
will go get their cochlea removed or something like that
so they don't, or get an artificial one put in,
or maybe like a bypass switch so you can switch
off your cochlear or your inner ear so you don't
get You could just like turn it off and on
some switch they'll put on you. I don't know. How
are they going to get around that? I don't It's
it seems like an insurmountable obstacle to this because it
would already be a thing. I think, I believe if
it wasn't for that.
Speaker 1: Well, this we'll probably tie into the recent trend of
the online education. Right. So, now, even back when I
was doing undergrad my university started implementing this thing where, oh,
you don't have to come to class anymore. We're doing
all these online classes and I don't I didn't ever
take any of them because it gets on my nerves
done it that way. But but this is getting really
big now where it's more and more commonplace to have
your whole course at college just online. And I think
that that's going to continue to grow and so maybe
they'll implement you know, VR through that. But yeah, like
you said, I don't know how that's gonna I guess
you have to take a bunch of drama meine every day.
I don't know what you do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just dose up.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what are you going to do to uh to
get around that? Yeah, I don't. I don't know what
the uh the plant. I guess they released this Oculus
rift thing and you could buy one now and uh,
but you know, people are still complaining about the motion
sickness issue on this thing, and uh, you know you're
hearing all this stuff talked about with Microsoft is in
on it, Facebook's talking about it and all these different
big companies or Google of course, and this augmented reality,
this virtual reality stuff. But uh, they seem to like
downplay the whole motion sickness issue like it's like it's
no big thing. But it's it just seems like, uh,
maybe the one big saving, one big saving hang up
on that thing is the is the fact that just
people can't adapt to that. You know, we could adapt
to everything, but we just can't adapt to being put
in these artificial environments like that because we just something
else has to come along to deal with that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I wonder it seems like I'm just
speculating here, but younger persons that play video games all
the time I'm talking about, like the people who sit
and play Halo all day, they seem to not be
as affected by this, And oh really, I can't do that,
Like I if I tried to play one of those
like Halo or something like that for more than ten minutes,
I get sick.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I wonder if the thinking isn't oh, you know,
the younger generations are going to be who's doing this,
and you know they're going to adapt to it, and
microevolution they're going to adapt to.
Speaker 2: It, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't think that's even possible
even you know, it's a but uh yeah, it seems
like no.
Speaker 1: Now, Chris, if you understood evolution, you would know that
if we if we work at it and just keep
at it, Uh, the virtual reality goggles will eventually just
meld into our skin and bone and they will become
a feature of our cranium and that's just how evolution works.
Don't understand evolution will adapt to it. Man, don't you
understand evolution?
Speaker 4: I guess I don't. I I I uh, yeah, I
think that is.
Speaker 5: Like it it It seems like because because i'm I'm
I'm of the school thought that, uh, you know, none
of these plans, these long range plans are a given.
Speaker 4: You know, just because they have the means to carry
this stuff out, you know, doesn't mean it's gonna be successful.
And what evidence do we have available to us that
all of this stuff will go through as planned?
Speaker 1: That's true?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean you listen to like somebody like Alan Watt,
and it's like, uh, he's going to tell you that
it's it's it's pretty much a done deal, that it's
a must be and then it's gonna it's it's gonna
it's gonna happen. But I'm not so sure about that.
It's I think that the human form as it is
is such so much more dynamic and resilient, and uh,
then then you know credit is given to it, like
the human mind, the human uh, the human being itself.
Speaker 1: Hi, folks, I'm.
Speaker 8: And I'm here to tell you that there's no hope
big boys, big boys planned it for a long time.
The big boys, big boys, the bankers, co Quigleys. I'm
Alan Woo prosidor Doom.
Speaker 4: Anyway, that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it needs need some work, I guess
the I have a comment for you, Chris. This is
some dude. Adam Walsh commented on your post that I
put up on my site where you deconstructed the Dawkinites
on that YouTube show, and I responded to this person,
but I thought you might want to respond to him
as well, and he says a good example of evolution
for you, doubting Thomas's would be the Atlantic tom cod
that has evolved to survive in the heavily polluted Hudson River.
Even rats that have become immune to poison and which
are bigger because of the fatty junk food thrown in
the streets by Slavs. There are fish that can There
are fish that can walk. I suppose Chris from Hoastbusters
would say the Australian walking perch is only claiming it
can survive up to six days on dry land.
Speaker 4: Well, there's the bacteria that's been observed to develop the
ability to digest nylon. There's changes in bacteria that where
they had previously no no observable ability to digest like citrate,
and then they didn't been observed to be able to
digest sit trate butchs there you go. Yeah, and then Jay,
are you noticing any gray hairs on your head? I do,
So that's biological change over time. That's Darwin. So that's
proof too. Uh. I got a scab on my leg.
I picked it and it bled, so that blood was
inside my leg and then it's on the outside. So
that's transfer biological biological change over time because the scab healed,
So that's Darwin.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's all proof, man, It's all all of it's proof.
But uh well, if you think about it for a minute,
you think about domestic the domestication of animals and they bred.
Uh let's take one breed of dog for instance, like
the uh what are those dogs that they used to
to hunt foxes or like a beagle or something, you know,
like they use the bread to hunt fox that can
get down in the foxhole has shorter legs as the shorter,
stumpier body has you know, the good uh uh broadcasts
so that it can run keep up with the keep
up with the the the hunters, keep up with the clocks.
So that so that is that that creature is has
adapted to that those requirements as far as its usefulness
as a domesticated animal. But that's see, that's something that
was observed ages before Darwin, right exactly, So how does
that happen? Jay? I mean, how does that? How do
you go from a wolf like creature to a beagle?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's how. The thing is that everyone uses
the taxonomy of species. The Darwinian theorists believe that species
is not a real property. It's just a term that's
used and it's all completely malleable.
Speaker 4: Uh so, yeah, it is right.
Speaker 1: But but the problem is that, first of all, nobody
who rejects that, I'm aware, rejects evolutionary theory, denies micro
evolution or adaptation. Everyone believes in adaptation, and as you said,
it was known and believed far before Darwin. People have
bred dogs, as you said, for for a long long time.
But that has nothing to do with the idea of
transformism as it's called in darwin theory. The older the
older term for that, the idea that you get one
species morphing into a completely different species. Right. So when
we look at a dog and a wolf, I mean
they're they're pretty much in that same kind or category, right,
But that is not the same thing as a horse
or snake, right, or you know different creatures different you know,
cold blooded, warm blooded, right, omnivores and arbivores. So what
were you gonna say?
Speaker 4: No, I was just gonna say that. Well, like the
example I pointed out earlier about the bacteria that was
observed to develop this ability to digest citrate, right, Okay.
Speaker 1: People with darker skin living near the tropics.
Speaker 4: Right, yeah, So what is that? What? What are we
looking at when we make those observations or the scientists
makes those observations, What are they looking at? Okay? What
what is going on at the at the nuts and
bolts level, the the the DNA, the molecule like or
or I were invoking genetics? You know, the bacteria had
that ability, but it was a latent ability. It wasn't
being expressed in its morphology until certain environmental conditions were
it was subjected to triggered and triggered it and then
it's it's this dynamic change within the organism. But it
represents something that already exists within the genetic code of
that organism. Do not thing with all dog changes that
you observe, same thing with all horse changes you observe
from breeding, and all that all that potential already existed.
Speaker 1: You don't have the introduction of a completely new DNA
or the DNA of a different No.
Speaker 4: It's not a slow gradual shifting of molecules that resulted
in a new trait or a new ability. That's not
what you're looking at. But that's what Darwinism requires. Yes,
but they always conflate the two and they'll show you,
like an example, the fish now can survive in an
environment where it couldn't survive before. Well, that's demonstrating the
adaptability of that organism based on the genome. That it
an ability of that genome to do what it needed
to do to adapt to that environment that already existed.
And then that the changes in the environment it triggered
the expression of those genes, or a lot of times
it's the non expression of the genes, like with in
the case with dogs having short hair or no hair,
you know it's a it's those genes for the hair
the fur are not being an expressed So that's not
an addition of new traits that would lead to if
you accumulate an accumulative effect over time, that would lead
to a totally new organism. That's not what you're looking at.
You're looking at the h the inherent variitability that's already
present within that organism.
Speaker 1: Right, for the Darwinian idea to be plausible, I think
you would need the potentiality in every DNA sequence for
every single animal. Right and if if I'm going to
be able to swim underwater, if I'm going to develop gills,
then the any sequencing that the fish has should be
present in me. But you're not going to get that right.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, yeah, because not there. Yeah, it doesn't you
don't have it. It doesn't exist. I mean there there's
a lot of genetic well, I mean we see that
with you know, especially with stuff you know we're most
familiar with, like the domesticated dog, cats. You know, how
long do you have to breed dogs? Like if they've
done experiments on the silver fox, within ten years, they
were able to get a silver fox to exhibit traits
and behavior very very similar to the domesticated dog. So
by by selectively breeding the foxes that exhibited more docile
tendencies and within ten years, yeah, they were already starting
to get a domesticated dog like creature. But it is
that an example of Darwinism. Now, we're always told that
Darwinism takes long ages of time, and then it's the
accumulation of mutations that result in all these new life forms, right, right,
So long ages of time can also mean ten years. Well,
it's a long age of time.
Speaker 1: Another point too, is if you think about what we
should see given Darwinism, we should see billions of skeletal
remains and fossils everywhere. We should literally be drowning in these.
You know, you can't walk out your door without you know,
shooting away four feet of skeletal remains, because if you
think about it, there would be billions of variations of
all the animals that have ever existed, right all the
way back four point five billion years ago, right, of
these transitions. Right, So everybody makes the transitionary fossil argument,
but I'm making a different point that they should actually
be everywhere because there would be billions of species right
with billions of transitions, excuse me, billions of numbers within
the species of billions of stages of transitions and there's
not anything but a few CGI models and these invented
interpretations that they give to bones that are found.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like the tiktolic, like they'll point to that is
like lizardfish. You know, it's like it's part lizard, part
fish or whatever they're saying that it is. But if
you were to look at that to say you found
it at a rummage sale or something like in a
cardboard box, it's like, oh, what's this And it's like,
I don't know, I found it in my backyard. It's
like some kind of skeleton and it kind of looks
like fossil if that was kind of cool, so I
kind of keep it. You have it for five bucks
or whatever. But it's exact same thing that you see
presented in museums and stuff like that. But let's say
outside of that context, you never heard of tiktolic, you
never heard of evolution. What would you do with that
set of bones? Would it change your belief your worldview
just on just the prema facie evidence of those bones, No,
it absolutely would not. Now, outside of the context of
modern science, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Yeah, only
interpretation put on it that.
Speaker 1: You'd say it's a fish or something similar, or maybe
somebody dropped a bunch of bones that were fish and animals. Yeah,
like one hundred years ago, some guy, a hunter, you know,
like dropped in old bag of bones or some and
then one hundred years later somebody finds it. It's like
there's the arm of a squirrel on the yeah, the
head of a rabbit, and then here's the scales of a.
Speaker 4: Fish or the like a Kroco squirrel or something with
a crocodilet on it or something like that. Yeah. Like, well,
well you have to have an expert come in and
give you the lowdown on what you're looking at, right,
so that you it's like the Mormon tablet's gold, you know,
like you were to find tablets of gold somewhere, you'd
be like, oh, cool, it's gold, you know, that's that's nice.
But uh but they're formed into these tablets with this
interesting writing on them, and uh so at that point
they not have any significance to you. But let's say
you go take it to the pawn shop or whatever
you want to check out and say, what is this man?
He checks it out and he's like, I don't know.
It looks like you maybe take this new museum, you
take it the museum, and so they say, well, maybe
the Mormons might be interested in this, and the Mormons
get it, and then that's a very profound significant finding
to them. But outside of the context of the authority
of the Mormon Church and their whole mythology and stuff
that they have already in place, that it would just
simply be some sort of tablets, right, something a matter
of gold, someone with writing on it, but it wouldn't
have any significance. Some undecipherable language that was given to
Joseph Smith by an angel, and then it would have
a great deal of significance in that context, but outside
of that context has real no significance other than maybe
the idea that it's gold and then you can maybe
sell it for some money or something like that based
on the fact that it's gold. But other than that,
it wouldn't have no significance until the interpretive framework of
the Mormon ideology is overset on it. Same exact thing
with these bones, because there's nothing you can take away
from just looking at those bones that would tell you
that that's a lizardfish. There's not even doesn't even have
any legs on it. It's like this like kind of
stumped sticking out of it, and it's like looks exactly
like somebody did a comparison between that and a certain
species of crocodile that's out there, and they put it
side by side, and it's like, wow, that's virtually identical
to that thing. But uh so, maybe it's a combination
of a crocodile skull and a fish like who knows.
But you have to defer to the experts, right, and
they have to interpret that for you.
Speaker 1: Yes, did you see that reminds me of the Grand
Canyon sized hole that opened up somewhere in Middle America?
I forget where it.
Speaker 4: Was, Yeah, up in Utah or why Won'ting or something.
Speaker 1: And this happened very quickly.
Speaker 4: Uh huh I talked about that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well that's supposed to take millions of years
for the Grand Grand Canyon to form. How is this possible?
Speaker 4: Yeah? How do you have a canyon that has a
lot of the same characteristics very strikingly so even and
it form overnight? It's not possible, is it?
Speaker 1: Say? I'm looking to science or entity, our god, creature
and it says that the Grand Canyon took seventy million
years to form. According to Live science dot com, he lope,
yuh huh, seventy million years.
Speaker 4: Science says seventy million years at least. Yeah, that's the Oh,
that's what you're going to be told. And then okay,
so when you go look at the Grand Canyon, now,
well that's proof of long vast ages of time. That's
evidence that you can observe with your own eyes. But
would you necessarily draw that conclusion outside of the scientific
priests class telling you that's what it represents now? And
remember especially if you just came from Wyoming where you
just saw a hole like that open up in the
ground like a week prior, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And other great points too. Stalactites and stalagmites do
not take millions of years to form. You can look
at houses that are one hundred years old with old
basements where they have formed and these are supposed to
take millions of years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and they'll have like a what like a fifteen
foot stalagmite in the basement, you know from Yeah, and
then you could find fossils of modern well, there's a
pretty well known fossil that's of a cowboy boot with
a foot still in it and it's completely fossilized.
Speaker 1: And then uh, dating, we'll say that's a million years old.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you were to take like maybe a chunk
of it and go have it dated and don't tell
them that it was a cowboy boot, they'd probably come
back with some astronomical date on it.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: There's been all kinds of examples of that where they
date stuff that can't possibly be that old because it,
you know, just came from newly formed out of a volcano,
and they date it it's millions of years old. So
it's like, Okay, this is brand new rock. You hello,
how do you get that date? It's like, well, something's
wrong somewhere, right I look at it that way?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 4: But you know, people are absolutely one hundred percent convinced
that they can take rocks and bones and stuff like
that out of the ground and run them through a
machine and get some kind of a date on them.
But you can't. I've talked about this where I have
this sample form from the University of Wisconsin or something,
and it's your submission form when you submit a sample
to be dated in their lab. You know, they're they're they're, uh,
what is that called isometric dating or whatever. They're going
to look at the rock and they're going to count
the isotopes and and do all that right with their machines.
They can do all that right. But at the top
of the form, they ask you the approximate date of
the thing that you're submitting.
Speaker 1: How old? How old is How old is your rock?
It's thirty million years old. Then you get it back
it says your rock is thirty million years.
Speaker 4: Old based on well, how far down was it? Was
it from the Triassic era, the Cretaceous era, or what
do you think it was from? Well, I found trilobite
in it, so it must have been of the pre
Cambrian era. Yeah, guess what date they'll probably give you,
you know, yeah, something approximating that.
Speaker 1: I think you guys have pointed out the Fly Geyser
as well, which is another great.
Speaker 4: Example, Yeah, of a geological formation that started forming in
this what sixties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the sixties at where they have Burning Man.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the same area right there right.
Speaker 1: Of the people at Burning Man would say they believe
in the Darwinian evolution. They're standing right next to the
fly geyser, which took like forty years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I'm sure like if they didn't
know any better and somebody was saw that, they would
just assume, well, that must be you know, many many
thousands of years old or maybe millions of years old.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, And that was I didn't know about the flagyser,
so I was glad to hear you guys point that out.
And you were probably the one that pointed out the
it's the massive crack in earth mysteriously opens a big
horn mountains and this is Wyoming. So two things to
check out that were new to me this last year.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And there's a guy Robert Gentry. Have you heard
of him?
Speaker 1: Huh?
Speaker 4: And so he goes into how you know coal seems
that's another thing that we're told that takes millions of
years to form, but he's demonstrated that he can. He
can make coal in a laboratory, put a heat and
pressure on it, and he can make it like a
couple of days. And then he's taken measurements of something
that something isotope or something that decays within these coal
seam formations, and he can take a sample of that,
slice it down the center and you can see these
like halos that will form. And if you look under
the microscope at these halos and then they have I mean,
they know how long it takes for those things to
form by direct observation that they show signs of being compressed.
So it said this had to have formed obviously before
the process that it underwent to get this visible compression
you know, in these halos. So it's like it's very
strong evidence that those formations didn't take No way could
have tooken millions of years to form. There's just absolutely
no way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Another assumption that's made on the part of people
that have that viewwards corollary the Big Bang and so forth,
is the idea that things couldn't be created with the
appearance of age. Right, So.
Speaker 4: In other words, I mean, what do we even what
does anybody even mean when they say appearance of age?
You know, So that's kind of like a arbitrary definition
and another example of one that gets thrown out there. Yeah,
you know, like, oh, well, this is this age because
of this, and they'll invoke radiocarbon dating or something like that,
but when in fact, there's a lot of different factors
that you know, can can give you all kinds of well, well,
like I just mentioned before, well, I mean there's even
examples where they take a wooly mammoth and then they
take a sample of this wooly mammoth that was giving
birth and it was like somehow flash frozen in the ice,
and they take they took a sample of the of
the baby wooly mammoth and the mother wooly mammoth, and
they got like a difference in age of like half
a million years or something like that. So that's obviously wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Another point too is what's often mentioned is the notion
of complexity, and so the Darwinian theorists will say, look,
you know, it's obvious that organisms moved from single cells
to complexity, right, because we see a self split and
so therefore we can reason back to presume or actually
dogmatically declare that everything thus split from one single cell
at some point. Well, no, because first of all, I
would just from a philosophical standpoint, I would say that
given the worldview that the Darwinian perspective has, there's no
such thing is complexity out there in the world. Complexity
is a is a concept, right, as you've been pointing out,
is an interpretive framework. So when you're looking at something
and it has the appearance of complexity in the Darwinian scheme,
ultimately it's all just atomism anyway, right, So it's just molecules,
and the idea that it's more quote complex, assume some
sort of scale or gradation of complex and less complex
or simplicity that is somehow a priori or inherently obvious.
And from a philosophical mantage point, that's problematic because in
that world view and your perspective, you would have no
reason or way to explain what complexity is because it's
a conceptual interpretation of some object in the world, and
you don't have that right. It's also as arbitrary as
what you're saying with the so called APay of age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I think a good, a real good example
that demonstrates that is this concept of convergent evolution. So
they'll they'll look at a biological feature in an organism
like bioluminescence and squid, octopus and stuff like that, and
so they can't concoct any kind of evolutionary relationship that
were they can point to that being a result of
some kind of common anist ancestry because it it will
totally disrupt their current model, you know, so they have
to reject that. So they have to come up with
this new theory, which is convergent evolution, meaning that bioluminescence
evolved separately in those organisms, independently of each other. And they, yeah,
that's actually a thing. It's a convergent evolution. So with
that in mind, you come over to do what they're
talking about with the fusion of chromosome two, and they'll
point to that as proof that we have common ancestry
with the chimpanzees because of this fusion site in the chromosome.
But if you keep in mind that there's the same
called convergent evolution, so that like this touch is on
what you just described where there is no real complexity,
there is no real structure anything, because everything is just
atomism anyway, right, So that the same holds true with
these observations, and they can invoke this special ad hoc
explanation for these repeating patterns, so that it's like they
want to invoke patterns in the case of chromosome two
or these er V sites they call them these uh
idea and uh so pointing the similarities between those sites
in a chimpanzee and those size and human, which actually
turns out that those are not what they purport them
to be anyway. They're not they're not retroviral sites, they're
not they're not vestigial. They have functions, so they can't
be that. So their interpretation on that has been proven wrong.
But anyway, let's say even if it was true, which
is it isn't true. But even if it was true,
they're relying upon an observed pattern, right, absolutely, How do
they now resort to applying significance to an observed pattern
when in other contexts it perhaps absolutely no significance exactly,
So patterns can be chalked up to just pure coincidence,
right in any other context.
Speaker 1: They are in Darwinism and in any other context. And
the irony here is that from a philosophical perspective, you
need the reality of patterns objectively out there in the
world for human interpretation, period, for the human mind to
interpret anything in the world. It's all kind of grounded
on pattern recognition. But the patterns have to also be
actually out there in the world. They can't just be
in the mind, right, because if they're just in the mind,
then we're stuck in our mind and syllipsism. And ironically,
because Darwinian theorists are generally people into do physics and biology,
they don't study philosophy. They don't they're not worried with
consistency because they're always contradicting themselves, which is funny because
they're always the ones to turn around and talk about
how they believe in the logic and reason. Well, number one,
logic is actually also conceptual, it's immaterial. They are rules
and laws, much like mathematical principles that function not just
in the mind, but also in the natural world. If
they didn't funk in the natural world, we couldn't build
a bridge, right because it's based on mathematical principles. Yet
at the same time, there is a belief that there's
no objective principles out there in the world. There are
just human descriptors for things that are called quote natural laws.
But those aren't really laws. They're just the way quote
nature works. It's just what's out there should just happens.
In other words, right, just yet, we're supposed to believe
that there is the ability of the human mind to
go out and interpret the world, to write scientific journals
to do all kinds of experimentation, which is all based
on pattern and logic. Right, the scientific method is based
on patterns and logic. Yet all of that is simultaneously
in modern science discarded. There's no such thing as a
mind that has a structure that's interpreting an external world
with order and structure that's been dispensed with so that
it's all completely shot itself in the foot philosophically, which
is why they don't care about philosophy. This is why
Neil de Grassy Tyson says philosophy is ridiculous and it
asks a munch of the dumb questions. Actually, it asked
the questions that Neil de grass Dyson has to avoid.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because you know, with without that, you know, you
can uh invoke any kind of crickterra you want for
your epistemology, which which excludes even having to be consistent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we believe in logic and reason. We're Darwins belar
with logic and reason. Oh what is logic and reason?
Don't bug me with your philosophy bullshit?
Speaker 4: Literally, Well, I think it can be summed up too,
like the whole argument, And I guess this's kind of
touch goes into the teleological argument, Uh, why would anything
in the universe have to work? Whatsoever? Why does anything work?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And by the way, for something working quote work.
That is also in the Darwinian scheme of necessity, a
subjective interpretation of phenomena in the world. What you're calling
working right when you say, oh, the gastro intestinal system
of the swamp rat, it works because it shits a lot.
That is merely a phenomena of things happening in the world.
There's no working or not working. I mean another word,
you see what I'm saying that there's no reason to
say that it's working simply because the phenomena are happening.
For something to work is to assume that you've got
again some sort of gradation of standard, just like something
being logical or consistent by which you can judge a
thing in this case works and a thing in this
case does not work. So, in other words, you're absolutely right.
Presumes te lose or purpose. But telos are purpose. According
to David Hume and everyone after him and all the
scientistic crowd. Does not work. There's no telos in the world.
Telos is a human interpretation of facts, and in fact,
every time you were if you were to say, oh,
the blind watchmaker, right, this is the one they always
fall back on. They'll say, David Hume showed us that
the blind watchmaker argument doesn't work because you're just interpreting
the phenomena of the world to have a purpose. Uh oh,
that works against Darwinism too, because you're just interpreting the
gastrointestinal system of the rat to have a purpose or function.
Now I think it does, right. But what I'm saying
is that in any one of these cases there are examples,
and you could give many anymore. What it shows is
that they're operating with a philosophy, even if they don't
want to admit it or know it, that is completely
contrary to the other subpositions of their philosophy, right, because
their philosophy is materialism, materialistic process determinism as a result,
and mind and psyche essentially don't exist. Really, they're illusory
and it's just shit happening. Yeah, they want to turn
so it's in other words, ultimate reality is completely irrational.
But they want to turn around and have all of
this reason and logic and rationality and meaning and purpose
and order in their descriptions and scientific methodology.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, they they do play both sides of the fence.
You know, they have these presuppositions that they operate off of.
And you know this, when somebody will point to something
observed maybe in childbirths, say a deformity, Well, there is
no such things as a deformity. That is only some
realization of some biological process. It totally has no purpose
or meaning even of what we're familiar with, because all
of that is totally subjective, right, So there is no
such thing as a deformity. There is no such thing
as even a disease or an illness. Yeah, say, all
those things are part of the biological process and you're
only putting that human interpretation on those things. There is
no such thing as a disease. There is no optimal
way to be or exist, So there is no I
think we maybe even see that come about. As bizarre
as that sounds, yeah.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised. It's a system that's so modeled
and nonsensical that it could literally go anywhere to try
to maintain its viability, because really it just falls back
on techniques of propaganda and there authoritarianism without any attempting
you know, coherence or consistency. Yeah, there's plenty of peer
reviewed papers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with
being consistent or coherent, or rational or logical or based
on evidence. You and I know this. Those two things
are radically different, right. But you know, for most people,
the equivalent of what it is to be rational and
coherent and logical equals peer review and what the establishment says,
and those two things are not the same. So yeah,
and from a philosophical mantage point, you can break that
down even further by pointing out the absurdity of every
time that they try to write a book or make
a statement. These are the also materialistic determined processes. They're
not actually learning anything about the world. They're just you know,
spewings over of chemical reactions. You know, the the books
that Stephen J. Gould writes are merely the determined processes
of natural phenomena and they don't have any objective meaning.
Which is curious because Neil Degrassey Tyson says that the
philosophical question that's posed to him often about meaning is
ridiculous and absurd. He thinks that those are waste of
time questions. Well, they're not a waste of time when
you tell me, on the one hand that life is
just a bunch of chemical reactions and meaningless, and then
you're going to turn around and try to write books
and do TV shows that purport to give the meaning
of the universe.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so they're like playing both sides of the field
and putting out contradictory philosophically contradictory constantficiens constantly. Yeah and yeah,
no wonder they don't want to touch on those areas.
But it's more of this and you'll se see it
how they argue a point or something like that. It's
that not not for any reason thought out, uh methodical way.
It's more of this, uh tell it just stating that, Okay,
we have the facts and that's a fact. You know
that we have a fact.
Speaker 1: Fact, it's just a fact.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just a fact that we have the facts.
And it's like, well that you told me nothing. I mean,
that is a fact that you've told me nothing. It
is like you're you know, but that's you know, if
you just go around and round with that, you're not
and not saying anything. So like when you know, you
get into a discussion with with somebody who's a Darwinist
and they're one hundred percent convinced that evolution is true
and it's been observed, and you, you know, you start questioning, Okay,
what what is in your mind the best evidence or
you know, evolution happened like they say it happened, and
so they give you their what they think is the
best evidence. And then okay, you want to take a
few steps further. Okay, let's get in the particulars of
what you say, this meat, what is in other words,
explain it, give give me flesh it out, and give
me some uh, some of the some of the mechanics
of how this actually works. Let's get under the hood.
It's like, you know, you got to you gotta buddy over. Okay,
you got a problem with your car. You can sit
around and talk about it. Well, I don't know, I
turned the key and nothing happens, and you can sit
and talk about it all day. Well, let's let's go
get under the hood and look at it, and let's
start poking around into there. So when you get into that,
to that level, you know, metaphorically speaking with a discussion
with somebody like that, it's like, why are you taking
me here? This is the this is the arena of
the experts. It's like it's like, uh, Jason Cavaledo did
with me. It's like I started pressing him on. Okay,
he says that he believes this, and he says, in
this established fact, well, let's get it too. Let's let's go, Jason,
let's go check it out under the hood, man, let's go.
Let's go start uh, you know, looking looking down under
there and start getting getting greasy into the nuts and
bults of the matter. And it's like, no, why I'm
not a mechanic, why should I do that?
Speaker 1: Well? And there's so's there's so many ways to from
my perspective, to come out this problem. So take that
situation where he says this is a fact, or like
you and I've had discussions in the past where where
you know, they talk about reason or logic and you say,
what are those things? What is reason? What is logic?
On your view?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So when we talk about a fact, well, the fact
that what he's doing in that conversation is presuming to
have learned something at some point in the past which
was true about the external world and his experience. And
I guess everybody's external world and this is objectively true
in his mind, and that he can at a later
date pull from that capital T truth and reiterate that
to you as something that was once true in the
past and still holds to be the case. Now, the
problem is that in that evolutionary worldview, this is a
huge leap. There's no reason to believe that something that
was experienced or interpreted or read in the past is
subject to it, or excuse me, is no longer subject
to evolutionary change and still retains some capital T truthiness
to it. You follow me. In other words, So in
philosophy this is called in metaphysics or in epistemology, it's
called the problem of identity. And what it presumes is
that you can interpret a truth about some object and
that that truth maintains invariantly it's status over time. But
the problem is that in that worldview, nothing maintains an immaterial,
invariant truthfulness over time, because there's no such thing as
that realm of immaterial conceptual truthfulness over time. That that's
been canceled out. It doesn't exist. And so to spout
out of your mouth these platitudes about something being a
fact right that you learned at sometime in the past
is pretty laughable given what your world view says at
the same time about everything being subject to constant flux
and change. Now, there may be some Darwinian theorists or
revolutionary theorists who think that they have some reason to
believe in, you know, truthfulness or conceptual realities or mathematical
entities or whatever that exists outside the space and time.
But that's not most of them. Most of them don't
and they've never even thought about that as an issue
because that's a question that is in philosophy that they
think is pointless and outside the realm of empirical science.
But that's the problem, is that when you have a naive,
empirical quote science worldview, which they all have, you're begging
the question when people bring these kinds of issues to you,
and I think they are important questions, you know. I
guess it depends on what you think of metaphysics, but
in my mind those are important questions. You know. I
want to be able to say that, you know, I'm
the same jays that exists over time, that I retain
my identity over time, even though my body might change
from the time I was a kid in turning into
this massive, adonous hunk of a man. Nowadays, I'm still
the same Jay, right, And so you know, this is
an issue again, the problem of identity over time. But
this is all just thrown away by the pragmatic Arminian
types because they don't think it matters but the problem.
But they're using all these things that make sense and
a theistic worldview. And that's my point is that it
makes sense why you know, there's a unchangeable truth in
my view. It doesn't make sense why anything is quote
true over time in your worldview.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I know, I see what you're getting out.
As far as this, well, it's like this whole idea
of of the concept of an art type, right, like
where if you have sort of an objective, unchanging standard,
let's say, of like what a male, an idealized male
or an idealized female, how would they look? It's like
maybe our our our imagination we think about like Adam
and Eve in the garden of Eden, Like what you know,
do we when when somebody says Adam and even in
our garden eating? Does the mental image come into your
mind of you know, the kind of typical American you know,
in their forties with like the big pot belly and
the Verico's veins and the double chin. Is that what
the image that comes to your mind? Or do you
see something? What do you see when you think of
Adam and e the first proto parents of all, you know,
the first human beings? You have a certain conception of that,
right yeah, sure, yeah, but it's not so. It's it's
this idealized form that everyone already has in their mind.
It's something like this or it's referred to as an
arc type or sure, an idealized form, right but of course,
like in the Darwinistic worldview, that's such a thing doesn't exist, right,
but you could prove it exists by doing these thought
exercises and and think, you know, just thinking things through,
Like okay, you think of like or you know, back
to the like domesticated dog, Well, is this a fully
realized dog or is a wolf more of a fully
realized you know what? Is it tainted or the scientific
classification of what that type of animal is? I think
everybody would agree that it's the wolf. And as opposed
to like a teacup poodle, you know, tea cup poodle
is not going to do that great in the woods.
But the wolf could hold their own and the like
the with all its instincts intact, with all its uh fur,
all of its stamina, all of its strength, all its
muscle tone. It's it's bone, it's bone density, and everything
is the archetype. It's the ideal. Everything that emanates from
that in our domestication process is lesser than in those terms,
then the wolf.
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting, yeah, so yes, So the archetype is
similar to the point of forms or eternal truths absolutely,
And as we've talked about in the past, that's just
a variation on the same argument that I've made in
talks we've had, you know, quoting like the mathematicians about
you know, the principles of say the Mandelbrot set, which
is not a humanly devised pattern, and it can go
on infinitely, and it's not found in empirical data in
the world, right, And so there are all kinds of
mathematical truths that are not realizable in time space reality,
that are nevertheless true. And don't we all kind of inherently,
sort of intuitively feel that one plus one is two, right,
But the problem is that these are truths and the
truthfulness of these examples are not things subject to time
and space change. Now the Darwin has many of them,
or the philosophers of naturalism and so forth, and materialism,
they will try to deal with this problem, and they
will all admit it's a problem, and what they'll generally
say is that, okay, actually one plus one is not
equaling too. These are just social constructs. This is the
most popular explanation for this problem is that humans just
got together and decided that one plus one is two,
which is utterly preposterous because one thing and one thing
equaling two things has absolutely nothing to do with humans
getting together and just deciding that right from some sort
of practical social organization or something. Furthermore, there's also no
evidence of the fact that humans got together and decided
that one plus one is two. And were you to
go to any primitive tribe and you know, try to
cheat somebody, they're going to probably know, right, like I
gave you a pelt, you owe me a bag of beings, right.
It's In other words, mathematics is yet another example of
that archetypal pattern that you're talking about. And it's not
different from culture to culture. There may be cultures that
are not aware of you know, mathematics in a maybe
advanced sense, but there is a basic kind of numerics
and counting that is ancient. Goes back, right, everybody is
using in some way, you know, one, two, three, four, five,
and up to ten in primitive societies and so forth.
So that shows you that also that you know, there's
empirical evidence for it, but there's also immaterial opriori evidence
for it, by the matter of fact that it's it's
self evident to anyone that one plus one is two,
and that is not a truth that is subject to
evolutionary change. If the whole world decided tomorrow that one
plus one is three, it would not suddenly make bridges
operate on a different principle of physics. And everybody knows
this right, right, right, But in the Darwinian theory, for
most of them at least, they would have to say that, yeah, okay, Well,
if everybody just decided that one plus one is three,
then you know, that's just the evolutionary progress of man,
and things change, and you know, societies make up different things,
and you know it just changes. Man.
Speaker 4: Well, you like the work too, well anymore, No, it
wouldn't work at all.
Speaker 9: It just you know it it Uh, it's not too
hard to see that there's this disconnect between.
Speaker 4: What is theorized. Yeah, you know, these belief systems and
what people actually do believe exactly when they go to
operate in the real world, they work off of these
presumptions that aren't in line with their worldview. Like I
talked about with the example of putting placing significance on
patterns in some areas and then other areas. You know,
they it's it's dismissed as you know, coincidence.
Speaker 1: It's easy to sit around and talk about philosophize and
write your books and pretend that you're an intellectual and
say that man has no mind, has my soul, has
no consciousness, world just matter. Yet then when someone comes in,
you know, murders Richard Dawkins's wife, he's probably going to
be mad about it. But there's not really any reason
to be had. I mean, it's just no atoms bumping
into other atoms. So your anger at that action is
merely just a human social constructed the response mechanism. It
really has nothing to do with, you know, anything objectively evil.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, according to them, yeah, so there, What what
are you getting uptied about?
Speaker 1: You know, why why? Why go to a funeral?
Speaker 2: Why? Why?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 4: Indeed yeah,