Speaker 1: Hey, Dira, thanks for coming on men with Chess. I
really appreciate it. How you doing tonight?
Speaker 2: Doing well? Doing well? Busy, busy time, a lot of
the debates going on, trying to organize a lot of stuff,
trying to finish my second book. But I'm glad to
be here. I'm honored.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Yeah, I heard you have a big debate coming
up tonight on Warski Live with an unnamed big YouTuber.
Is that right?
Speaker 2: Well, I haven't heard back yet from Andy. I heard
from him a week ago and he said he would
try to get it arranged tonight. But I texted him
today and he hasn't responded yet. I don't know. Oh wow,
not for sure, but keeps getting postponed, so hopefully it'll
happen eventually.
Speaker 1: Gotcha all right? Well, I hope they go through. I
look forward to listening to it.
Speaker 2: Man, I'm excited to debate. I got a big atheist,
and I think some people have already figured out who
it is. It's not step On, it's not Sticks, it's
not Jordan Peterson, so that only leaves a handful of other.
Speaker 1: Well, I was kind of hoping you were going to
do a seance and debate Christopher Hitchins.
Speaker 2: Actually, I don't think I'm not trying to be offensive
to this person, but I don't think he's not really
known as being an intellectual atheist. He's more of just
a vocal kind of a flamboyant more so than a
like a PhD or something.
Speaker 1: Gotcha? Okay, well, I look forward to it. I heard
your debate with Nicholas Fuentes, and I thought that was
very entertaining, and so I respect your debate skills, that's
for sure.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I've yet to lose a debate.
Speaker 1: Actually, all right, Well, for those of you who don't know,
Jay Dyer's website is jasanalysis dot com. He's the author
of Esoteric Hollywood Sex, Cults and Symbols and Film Jay,
what else do you want us to know about you?
Speaker 2: I am the I run Jason Elis, as you said,
but I also do a subscription service there. That's kind
of the main means of how people interact with my
work is through the articles and the videos and subscribing
to educational content basically, so there's a lot of lectures
on philosophy, history, theology, geopolitics, book reviews, and I've been
doing that for I guess about a year and a
half or two years now, So that's one way to
access my material. And I also am the co creator
and co presenter of the television show Hollywood Decoded on
Guy at TV, which is accessible through Exfinity and Amazon
Prime and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh awesome. Yeah, I watched that episode you sent to
me on Lord of the Rings. This fascinating stuff. I
thought that was really great. Kind of a cult or
symbolic Ciskel and Ebert.
Speaker 2: I guess you could say, yeah, yeah, we try to
say Cisco and Ebert on acid or Cisco and Neibert
two point zero or yeah, different ways to kind of
update social neighbor. But thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no problem, Well, good stuff, man, I appreciate it. Yeah,
we wanted to talk tonight about social engineering. I've heard
you talk about this confidently in the past on Tim
Kelly's show and other places, and specifically how it's affected
Christianity in the West in the twentieth century, but also
more broadly so, I think hating on baby boomers is
kind of a popular meme right now, and there seems
to be kind of something wrong with them. They're very
self indulgent people, and they kind of, you know, wasted
away our economy and all these different criticisms we have,
and I think a lot of that has to do
with the social engineering that's gone on. So can you
give us kind of a big picture where is this
coming from and why is it being done?
Speaker 2: Yes? And I have to take some credit for that
because my friend Mark and I were writing blog pieces
about eight years ago making boomer jokes, so I might
me and Mark actually be the first the internet boomer posters.
But anyway, yeah, I mean it's obviously it's not anything
as naive as to say that the problems of the
world are the results of a single generation. We have
to look, i would say, at many years of practicing
and perfecting the technique of social engineering. So in a
very broad sense, this is the practice that goes all
the way back to Machiavelli, or you could extend it
back even to ancient empires. And you even see this
kind of stuff in the Bible. You'll see the means
and methods of geopolitical machination when you read the books
of the Kings, Chronicles, Samuel, et cetera. But in the
modern area era it's a little more precise because you
have the rise of technological process technique and scientific technique
in how to manage mass groups of people. So I
would argue that most of this arises out of the
military and wartime strategies and planning. Certainly, prior to that,
you had bankers who were already back in the seventeen
hundreds eighteen hundreds of the times of the revolutions. They
had already noticed how to fund revolutionary movements in other countries.
This is not solely the enterprise of Jewish bankers. It
is a practice of bankers in general. And you can
read that Carol Quigley. I have lectures on the totality
of his book Tragy and Hope, and he uses France
as one example, and he covers the rothschild the Catholic
and the Protestant interests that all were sort of vying
for power and control of France as one test case. Now, certainly,
over time Jewish banking interests tended to have a lot
of power through the Rothschilds. But we can't leave out
our WASP and our Vatican bank connections either, And of
course the Rochels have also been the official papal bankers,
I think since the seventeen hundred, so all of these
interests interconnect, and as I think Spangler put it very well,
there's never been a socialist revolution that wasn't funded by
capitalists at the top. And I think that that's accurate.
And so when we look at the French Revolution, we
see a kind of a combination of Protestant, Swiss and
Jewish banking interests and the British Empire having a vested
interest in removing a Catholic monarch. We see a similar
pattern with the funding of the Bolshek revolutions from revolution
excuse me, from the Warburgs and other New York banking houses,
and that was essentially to reconstruct and set up a
social experiment in Russia, to get rid of the idea
of a bizarre and imperium and a confessional state. See
the same pattern of the removal of the Holy Roman
Empire in Europe and the removal of the Byzantine continuation
in the Romanovs, their removal by the Bolsheviks. And ultimately,
this I would say, is at the behest of the
money power. It was the banking interest behind both of
these things. Quickly comes to the same conclusion that Friedman
of Stratford came to when they both said that the
twentieth century was about the Atlantis sis or Western power
blocks removal of their two main rivals, namely Germany, Austria,
Hungarian Empire and Russia. So that's the twentieth century in total,
in both of the wars and the Cold War. The
way you get out of these wars and the wartime
experience is a lot of research, research and development that
goes into the war machine and perfecting the techniques of
war quickly. For example, was a maritime war historian, also
has other works about histories of civilization and warfare and
so forth like that. A second excuse me, So this
research and development was focused largely in the traditional sense
of psychological warfare, but also in the implementation of new
techniques and strategies that would involve a lot of advanced
UH things like cybernetics. This would come to dominate entities
like DARPA, which would be very instrumental in how to
manipulate technology to achieve the upper hand in warfare, specifically
things like mimicking nature, transhumanism, et cetera, et cetera, but
specific entities that can definitely be pointed to would be
the Tavistock Institute, the Frankfurt School.
Speaker 3: The which by the way, both had intimate connections to
the CIA, the OSS, and as I was discussing hober
Moss in one of my lectures last night for subscribers,
harber Moss is one of the.
Speaker 2: Premier figures of the Frankfurt School, which was the German
Jewish figures who had studied culture and the idea of
culture critique, culture creation, and ultimately culture degradation. And so
hober Mouse, for example, talks about how you could socially
engineer America through all of these different cultural means. And
what most people don't know, however, is that it was
the OSS, the CIA, the Rockefellers and Macy Foundation money
that actually brought these Eastern Bloc Marxists over to help
America fight the Great Wars. So what you get in
America is a basically they mastered the art of culture
creation and toxic culture. And so it's not just Jewish interests.
It was Rockefellers and the CIA that brought the Frankfurt
School people over. So there was a combination of interest.
There wasn't just one group. They both had a vested
interest and so that's how we get the sixties counterculture
and the boomers is from these I would say Pentagon, Military, CIA,
Frank for school characters are all on the same team.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there does seem to be a real tendency these
days on the internet among alt rightish type communities to
point the finger at Jewish interests and ignore some of
the other interests. But there definitely was a lot of
different groups working together for the same goal. But I'm
kind of curious, is there a unifying ideology for this
agenda or is it just about amassing power and money
or what have you found out?
Speaker 2: So I think that people who don't have a theology
or a belief in the transcendent, they're generally walking around
in a hall of mirrors trying to figure out who
the one bad guy is. But if you have a
conception of theology and a belief in the Bible things
like this, then you tend to have an overriding view
of history and total beginning, middle, and end, and so
you have a conception of good and evil, and so
good and evil are of course spiritual forces, and they
are not any specific racial, ethnic socio political group or
class that. It's not class warfare, it's not any of that.
There are undoubtedly powerful interests, but I see the Rockefellers
as far more powerful and influential and prominent in the
last century than Jewish interrists, for example. I mean, the
Frankfurt School would not have had any power had any
been brought over by the by British intelligence and the
CIA and the Rockefellers.
Speaker 1: Indeed, yeah, I heard I heard you talk about on
other shows. How in America and to some degree in Europe,
the right wing tends to always point the finger at
Marxism and communism, and this is the reason our civilization
has been undermined, and gender identity destroyed, and pornography pushed
on us because some sort of KGB psyop or something.
But in reality, when you look at it, it really
seems like this is coming from, as you said, the
big banks, because they really funded these revolutions, and the
Rockefeller interest also pushed these things here at home. So really, well,
there's a lot more to it than just Commi's.
Speaker 2: Right, absolutely, this is very crucial, and this is one
of the main reasons why I did the eight lectures
on Tragy and hope is because Carol Quigley, who himself
was a Catholic of sorts or a professing Catholic of
some kind, I was very much a fan of the
Western Atlanti's democratic order, and he actually thought that, you know,
this democratic new world order would be the best thing
for the world. So that's why he was a true
believer and a supporter, I believe, and quickly is very
adamant in the book. This is probably what the book
is most known for is the quotes where he says
that the communist Marxist, leftist socialist movements in America on
their own had absolutely no power and didn't weren't that
effect effective until they received all of this money from
these very wealthy elites that were both Jewish, Protestant, and
times even Catholic. So I mean, it's it might be
difficult for some people to wrap their head around that,
but I mean it's like I said earlier, that this
is why you have the the Wall Street funding both
Nazis and the Bolsheviks. And one of the best ways
to see this is to read some of the real
inner circle planners of this whole system. This over writing
ideology that you asked about. Yes, I've been doing a
series called Globalist Books, and this is characters like people
from the CIA, like Miles Copeland, or people from the
Royal Society like Bertrand Russell, the Fabian Society, people like H. G. Wells,
and they are very people like Charles Galton, Darwin, Arthur Kessler.
I'll be doing Jacques Attalie next. These are characters who
are very open about the overwriting ideology. And it's not
solely racial. It is also materialistic. It is technocratic and dysgenic.
And so that's what bertin Russell's. Russell says, Yes, I'm
very happy to see the Bolsheviks succeed in Russia because
he says it's a social experiment, just like all the
other twentieth century movements and ideas. He says, there's social
experiments to see which things work best for the technocracy.
Speaker 1: So the endgame here is the development of this new
world order type technocracy, I guess is what you could say.
Speaker 3: It.
Speaker 1: Almost to me, looking at it seems like kind of
a like a dark alchemy, or something like a social alchemy.
They're melting down all these social institutions that we've had
in the West for centuries and trying to create an
entirely new society that's almost an opposite image of what
was there before. Out of what they've melted down. You
know what I mean is good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we're spot on. There is a chapter
in Tragic Hope that a lot of people miss because
everybody focuses on the sections where he talks about the
banker's funding the communists. There's a more important chapter about
the rise of the military industrial complex, and Quigley's whole
point in the chapter is that the new world order
is transhumanism. It is technocracy. He says, that's the whole
goal of all of it. So we can argue about
all these other things. And I'm not saying you can't
argue about those other things. I'm saying that the long
term plan is not just Israelis. It includes the Saudis,
it includes you know, China, it includes all these other
interests to be a part of this global scheme. You
can debate to what degree, you know, atheistic Zionists or
whatever have a role in that, but I think that
the the overarching plan is technocracy. It's not rooted in
any kind of Jewish messianic claims. You know, do you
see what I'm saying. Yes, yes, I don't think that
Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and these people who have you know,
arguably some of the they're probably some of the most
amplement on the planet. I don't think they're really concerned
about Jewish Messianism. I don't think they care about Palestine.
So what what do they care about? Technocracy? And so
I see this the most powerful people all being on
board with that, and that's why to be in that
kind of club, you have to be on board with that.
They don't really care about the ideology of a single
piece of land in the Middle East. I'm not saying
that that that Israel doesn't have a role in that,
but if you look at when Israel is being set up,
what the Balfour Declaration and the Royal Society and all this,
what they were saying at that time, they weren't really
concerned with Jews or Rams. They just wanted an outpost
uh and the Royal Society who set that up were
just as interested in controlling the Islamic world as they
were controlling the the Jewish homeland. And this is why,
by the way, Jews got mad at British occupation, and
you had like the er Gone and the bombing of
the King David Hotel and so forth.
Speaker 1: Right, and they do seem to have these technocrats an
apocalyptic profit in Ray Kurtzweil, and he published that over
a decade ago, talking about the year twenty forty five
and how human beings will become just totally integrated with
computer technology and AI and the planet Earth will basically
become like a technological god being.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that this is the plan for
all seven and a half billion people. I think the
becoming transcendent technological god beings is for the upper class,
and the rest of us will well, I'm not sure
what they have planned for the rest of us. Do
you have anything ideas.
Speaker 2: Well? Yeah, they say very clearly to get rid of
everybody else. So there's no debate about that. That's been that.
When you read all of these globalist texts, and these
are formative thinkers for the global plan, they always talk
about two or three things across the board. They never
disagree about Darwinian evolution and technocracy. They never disagree about
the need the crisis to kill off most of the planet.
And they never disagree about the implementation of a federation
of all nations into a global government. Every one of
them always across the board. That's their dogma. So one example,
another good example this is somebody like Arthur Kessler. Now
a lot of people would say, we'll see Arthur Kessler
in Thirteenth Tribe proves the Kazarian theory. Well, I don't
really put a lot of stock in the Kasar theory.
I think it's kind of a silly thing. But what's
interesting about Kessler himself is that he stepped out of
caring about Jewish interests and was self consciously a Luciferian,
and he was part of that inner British Royal Society clique.
And he wrote Ghosts in the Machine, and at the
end of Ghosts of the Machine he says what you
just said. He says, it is a dark alchemy what
we're doing to the globe, and it is to to
he puts it the way he states, it is to
commander engineer, to commander evolution, to propel the species to godhood,
basically is the whole point. So they're all agreed on transhumanism.
That's who came up with all those the Huxley's coined
the term transhumanism. That is the ultimate goal. And that's
also why you see a convergence of somebody like Ray Kurswall,
who I would assume has some kind of Jewish background,
and David Rockfeller if they both like the idea of transhumanism,
because as it's an alternate version of the Gospel salvation
through technology, and so you could look at it like
who's the bad guy. Well, in the first century, who
was the bad guy? Well, you have the Pharisees. They
teamed up with Caesar and hearing them. So there's a
combination of interests that are in rebellion against truth, against Christ,
against the logos. And I don't believe that they actually
will achieve technological godhood. I think that that's partly a lie,
a myth that they are projecting. And certainly there will
be technological enhancements, probably extended life longevity, you know, I'm
sure there will be all kinds of new miraculous nanotech
health discoveries. But to think that this is going to
give you immortality, I think would just be utter stupidity
and being completely naive. Yeah, No, why would the people
why would the people who say that they want your
dad give you immortality. That's other stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I definitely think it's an overreach. That whole
what is it called the Ray kurtzwild theory, I forget,
but I don't think it'll get that far to a
technological godhood. But you know all this technology singularity, Yes, yes,
I think it's a positive thing in and of itself,
and we just need to reconvert the culture and baptize it.
Speaker 2: Exactly. I was, I forget which talk or stream or something,
but I was saying that we have the template, you know,
already laid down as to how to build societies, how
to build cultures, and how to have real progress. And
one of the things that I always cut at the
root of is that most Jews, and most alt right,
and most atheists and most Pagans, can you think of
one thing they all have in common?
Speaker 1: No, what was that? Darwinism? Darwinism.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm a big opponent of Darwinism and have
been for a long time. I'm always trying to find
somebody to debate it. Yeah, and I've written, I've written
a whole ton of articles against Darwinism and Darwinism factors
directly into transhumanism. Darwinism, I believe, is a from I
come at it from the position of a philosopher, that's
my training, and so I critique it from a philosophical standpoint,
which is not to say that I never I don't
ever engage in the scientific discourse. I do, but I'm
mainly concerned with higher order questions, and philosophy is a
little bit higher order than empirical science. So I believe
that Darwinism is a mythology, that right that originally comes
from ancient Hinduism. And so the the people want to
make a connection between like scientism and Kabbalism, Yeah, you
can find that connection, because ultimately these these positions are
really the same as like ancient a perennial tradition style
Hindu stuff. So you were once a rock and then
you you know you, or you were once a goo
and then you evolved into you know, to something else.
And so the transmutation of species, I think, which is
completely ridiculous, is really a very powerful presupposition that most
people aren't willing to criticize or question. So that's why
I think that the alt right is doomed to fail
as well as all these movements because they're all predicated
on a false grand mythology, which is basically you know,
if you read the ancient Greek myths, it's the same idea.
It's like lightning. The gods struck the ground of lightning,
and you know, out of it comes man. I mean,
that's like exactly what the theory of the produce the
protest the rise of the protozoa was.
Speaker 1: So so you're telling me, Jay that you don't believe
that all the complexity of life evolved from a single
cell organism. You don't think this is a scientific effect.
Speaker 2: No, because as I understand, DNA only prints what it
has within that species code. So a whale is never
going to print bear code. A tree is never going
to print whale code. You can have mutations and adaptations,
but the new coding that is expressed to show those
mutations or adaptations is only what is already present in
the strand, and it's either on or off. So the
whale never has bear code.
Speaker 1: Well, I tend to agree with you. I've been skeptical
of evolution in Darwinism my entire adult life, being raised
in a very conservative evangelical home. That's sort of part
of the course, but it's really when you look at
it and take yourself out of the conditioning we've been
put through the social engineering we've been talking about. It's
such an absurd theory and there's no way you could
empirically prove it. You'd have to go back in time
billions of years and then observe the species evolving and
have some sort of billions of years of immortality to
even prove that it happens. So it's it's just an
absurd thing on its face, And it's funny because of
the reaction you get when you say you don't believe it.
They treat you like you're the absurd person. So it's
classic projection, I'd say.
Speaker 2: Right, And there's many reasons for this. But most people
who for example, go to university and study biology or
they study astronomy. And when I was doing my undergrad
I mean I had to take science classes. I took
a lot of plus or science classes. I interacted with
all of these different professors and people with you know,
getting a biochemistry degree or whatever. I did this for
many years and then I did grad school. I'm not
unfamiliar with what is taught and how people defend their positions.
And what I did when I was in my undergrad
was actually pretty consistently debate professors. That didn't make me
very popular with the professors, but I did it and
it is what it is. And so for most of
the science professors that I had. For example, there was
one guy who was an astronomy teacher and I had
a debate with him, and he actually suggested that I
debate head of the department. So I went to the
head of I can't remember. He might have been the
physics head. It might have been a different guy, but
I think he was a physics guy. So I had
a long, long, long debate with the head of the
physics department. And what I came to realize this is
I was like twenty three at the time, so I
wasn't super versed and everything, but I did understand basic
apologetics and I understood basic presuppositional apologetics at the time,
so I was fairly well armed. And I realized that
that education is compartmentalized, and the people who study physics,
they don't know philosophy. That doesn't mean that every person
who studies physics doesn't know philosophy, but on the whole.
It's very compartmentalized. If you are getting a PhD in physics,
you might have only had one or two philosophy classes.
I mean it's not required. You might have had logic
and you maybe if you wanted to, you might have
taken something like, you know, philosophy one on one or something.
So most of them don't study the whole. Other discipline
called philosophy of science, which is very famous, has a
lot of great intellectual giants who have written on the topics,
people like Michael Polani, and he's a famous scholar who
has critiqued the positivist empiricist, a tradition of of the
physical sciences and philosophy science which is a dead end.
But you will be very hard pressed to find many
people who get quote hard science degrees who don't grasp this. Now,
this is another interesting point that should be made, is
that there's a distinct. I believe there's a distinction between
life sciences and hard sciences, and so things like biology.
I'm not saying that they can't involve aspects of heart science,
but when they start talking about the theory of origins,
it's very speculative. Okay, if you're an engineer, which is
part of science, engineering and science, computer science, mathematics. Right,
you're engaging in something that's more I would say, directly
directly relevant to something like understanding DNA, because you understand
design and you understand architecture, right, And so a lot
of times when propagandas for Darwinism start to talking about
science is all on our side, science is all on
our side, that's not actually true because there are plenty
of engineers who are theists and who recognize all of
these same principles and they're part of science. So it's
just kind of a game they play where they kind
of move the markers around and they move the the
delineators around to decide who's part of science and who isn't.
And it's all relative depending on the debate at hand.
So so they just don't know what they're talking about.
I mean, I rambled there for like five minutes, to
forgive me, But at the end of the day, they
don't know the basic philosophical questions like you know, what
about the principle of induction? You know, you ask most
philosophers and I mean scientists, unless they've studied a little
philosophy that they're kind of like, what what about this
idea of why is that? Do you believe the future
will be like the past? Oh? Well, that's just kind
of a basic assumption, and we don't worry with those
questions anymore. So they just they will arbitrarily kind of
just throw out the things that they don't consider relevant.
But there's no clear scientific test for what things are
objectively relevant or not. It's their subjective taste. And this
is why you have people like Nildagras Tyson will say
a philosophy and philosophy of science don't matter anymore. Well,
they don't matter because he can't answer those questions and
he gets mad when people ask them.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I noticed that, especially in the New Avius community,
there was a big attack on philosophy in general, classical
philosophy because they were bad at it basically, right.
Speaker 2: All they do is, you know, it's funny. They will
criticize theists, and I will give them some credit because
a lot of theists make bad arguments and they rehash
bad classical proofs for God, which I don't think are
very good. I think the need to be kind of
restated because the questions and needs of our time are
not the same questions and needs of you know, the
year thirteen hundred. So so they'll they'll throw this this
monkey poo at the theists quite often and say how
bad their arguments are and that they just rehash old,
debunked arguments. But guess what, all these new atheists are
just rehashing people like David Hume and people from the
French Revolution. I mean they're not they're not doing anything
spectacular either, but rehashing you know, Enlightenment eraror arguments. So
I think that the discourse is pretty low level and
pretty pretty lame and pretty weak, and it's kind of
that way by design. I mean a lot of these
people are really just kind of pop figures propped up
like Bill Nye. You know, Bill NIC's changed. Bill NY's
been caught contradicting himself multiple times. Somebody put together a
great video of Richard Dawkins totally contradicting himself within a
few years about junk DNA, where he's like, junk DNA
prooves evolution, and then like a few years later, when
suddenly they've decided maybe there's not junk DNA, he's like,
I've never said junk DNA proof's evolution. Junk. The fact
that there's no junk DNA prooves evolution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, these guys are definitely propped up in one
way or another. I mean, for the public consciousness, science
is not you know, the scientific method and empiricism. It's
it's just a way to drive the narrative in a
certain direction, in favor of Darwinism, in favor of transgenderism,
all these social issues. It's just another form of social engineering.
So that's why you have all these scandals that the
different scientific journals. People will contribute studies that have bad
evidence in it, specifically to see if he can get published,
and it does because it supports a certain political narrative
they want to push.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a whole bunch of articles that you can
pull up about fraud and science for aud in the
peer review process. There's no actual peer review way to
prove the peer of view process. I'm serious, And there
been There have been countless mainstream articles on this. The
most famous of which people can look up is the
Lancet the Lancet Journal, which I've sourced this so many times,
I need to just archive this on my website actually,
but everybody should read the very brief discussion from the
Lancet about where they were discussing about fifty percent of
most peer view papers are fake.
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the Lancet is, of course Oxford's premiere, longest
running medical science journal that was published I think two
years ago, and you can still pull it up. The
PDO of the actual file is still available. At least
it was fairly recently. So, and this is not anything
surprising or new. Now people will hear this and they'll say, oh,
you're a science denier.
Speaker 1: Not at all.
Speaker 2: I mean, in fact, as I said, you know, a
lot of my graduate work was philosopher science. Phenomenology was
the questions of analytics and how analytical philosophy ties into
you know, the hard realities of the here and the now. Right.
This is kind of ancient philosophical questions just rehashed in modernity.
So I'm very pro science. I think science is a
wonderful tool for understanding the natural world, and anybody who
would deny that is a complete idiot. But the science
as a tool is a giant light year leap from scientism,
which is a grand narrative explanation. Yeah, no tool can
ever be a grand narrative if you have a monkey
wrench and a giant. You know, if you have a
monkey wrench, the monkey wrench doesn't tell you how the
car is built, right, I mean, a wrench is a tool.
It doesn't give you an explanation. So in the same way,
the scientific method is a tool for understanding the natural world,
but by its very nature, it's not designed to ask
questions that by definition would come outside the scope of
empirical investigation. So, for example, mathematical concepts, logical laws, these
by definition are abstract and so they are not material.
So when the so called scientists or scientism proponent propaganda
says I don't believe in anything immaterial abstract that I
can't see, he's not being honest because he will absolutely
utilize mathematical concepts, principles, ideas like law, ideas like rights,
and those cannot be empirically demonstrated or proven.
Speaker 1: Very good, Well, let's shift topic back to the I
want to talk a little bit more about the baby
boomers and kind of what specifically was done to them
as a part of this social engineering agenda. You're probably
familiar with Terrence McKenna, definitely a spoop mouthpiece well, maybe
definitely talking about the Archaic Revival. During his career, it
kind of seems like there was an agenda to dismantle
the industrialized civilization that had been created in America and
kind of get people to go back to the land
and start living in like small huts and communes and
kind of go back to an almost feudal lifestyle. Would
you agree with that or I would absolutely agree with that.
Speaker 2: And I just put up a documentary at my website
called the Net which is about mk Ultra and the
Unibomber and the rise of the Internet. And this is
an old, somewhat famous documentary from I think two thousand,
two thousand and three somewhere in there, and this is
an interview with a lot of people who were formative
in the rise of the Internet. And this is you know,
people at DARPA, people in MIT military, kind of gone
level people, and they are discussing the simultaneous rise of
the concept of the internet in the sixties with the
cultural revolution. And so what I'm getting at is that
the deeper that you dive into this question, when you
read the works of Dave McGowan, you find out that
absolutely the counter culture and this would include the archaic
revival primitivism and this idea, but all the hippie ideas
and Terence McKennon obviously as part of that giant social
engineering project. And I don't think there's any question about
that anymore. The deeper that you dive into, a lot
of people with boomers especially have not heard this, are
not familiar with it, and so they kind of saw
themselves as positioned in this period of Cold War where
Russians are all the bad guys and it's you know,
the evil empire, and the only way out of that
is to make sure that Americanism and pepsi and coke
can be spread to the whole world. Right taneous with
that is what you're saying. The de industrialization is absolutely
aided by the rise of the hippie culture. And the
same people at the Royal Society who back in the
thirties we're talking about the de industrialization of the West
and the rise of China as an industrial powerhouse for
the globe, they were also the people who were saying
we can socially engineer the West with giant LSD mushroom.
Terence McKenna, Timothy Leary, stooges.
Speaker 1: And this is back in the thirties, right.
Speaker 2: So in the thirties you have Russell saying and I
did two talks on virtin Russell's books Scientific Outlook and
Impact of Science on Society. And in both of those
books he discusses the geopolitical plans in how the West
will attempt to be destroyed and the industrialized and the
rise of the East, and he even mentions things like
mass and ized migration. At the same time, another one
of his cohorts in this conspiracy, Alice Huxley, was instrumental
in Tavistock and uh, the British version of the the
rise of LSD sandas pharmaceuticals. And that's how the CIA
would because the CIA is working in tandem with British intelligence. Uh.
And so they are the ones who are coordinated with
Tavistock to you know, share research and so forth. Uh.
And they realized that, yes, everything that the Huxley is
talking about, that's this is why Huxley went to Berkeley
and gave this famous famous lecture Berkeley. Hello, Right, this
is hippie Central saying that you will be given giant
loads of drugs and you will be ushered into the technocracy.
That's what he says in the lecture. And he says
even says at one point, all you people in the
audience are too stupid to even understand that I'm telling
you that this is really going to happen. Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And you know he was right. I mean, most
of most of the people in the West have no
idea what's happening to them.
Speaker 2: And he's also not a good guy warning us this
is another mistake.
Speaker 4: Now, a lot of people make a mistake and they say, oh,
but to see when I read all the text that
he talks about freedom and he doesn't want us to
be enslaved, that's because he's a liar.
Speaker 2: That's because he also wrote elsewhere that he believed in
this plant.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So how did this impact this shift to the
industrialize and the hippie movement and all this. How did
this impact Christianity in the West after the hippies started
to rise up. I heard you talking about this recently.
I was wondering if you could give us a little
insight here.
Speaker 2: Well, you have the co opting of the church. Basically,
even though this Homber Moss talk that I did last
night was for subscribers. It was actually illustrative in one
part where he talks about the churches being made Marxists. Now,
let's put this in context, because in a sense they
were and in a sense they weren't. If you mean
by Marxist, the Frankfurt School Marxist and the cultural degradation
cultural Marxism. Yeah, they have been turned to that. But
how was that done? Was it done by a bunch
of dirty dudes on the streets of hate Ashbury with
Chay Gavara T shirts and wearing a beret. No, it
was done by giant hordes of money behind the Frankfurt
School as one example. It was done with giant amounts
of money put into studying the effects of LSD, by
the military, by the CIA, by psychiatric institutions. It was
done by the promotion of the degenerate rock bands. Right,
So this changed the culture. And because American Christianity, American
Christianity from the beginning, I would say, has been very
troubled and kind of on a double think dilemma because
of the weaknesses, I would say, and they found the
ideology of America. There's always been a susceptibility in American Christianity.
To instead of informing the culture to mirror the culture.
So it should be the other way around. But you know,
this is why your preachers in America end up looking
like CEOs. They begin acting like the CEOs and their
churches look like giant strip malls or factories.
Speaker 1: And that's the heresy of Americanism.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah. So I think wim Hoff is correct that
the CIA through the facade of the Cold War. I'm
not saying there weren't real persecutions during the Cold War.
In fact, this actually duped a lot of the Russian immigrants,
the white Russians that left Russia. It was British intelligence
and people in the West that brought them over. But
I don't think that they understood that the long term
game was not that the people in the West were
their friends. The long term game was to ultimately support
the dismantling of Russia and the institution of the New
World Order. And the CIA did a similar tactic with
the Catholic Church by getting the Catholic Church to jump
on board the CIA's doctrinal warfare program of C. D.
Jackson and other characters like that Henry Leoce and that
this ended up being part of the reason why Vatican
two happened and you had the passing of the acceptance
of Dignitatis humani in Nostra Tate.
Speaker 1: Just for the listeners out there, not all my listeners
are Catholic, but most of them are. Jay is not Catholic,
He's Orthodox. So just so you aware of that, and
you know, we don't have to agree on every single thing,
but look into these things because there definitely has been
deep state influence on the Catholic Church. There's no denying that.
Speaker 2: Well, well, David Wimhoff is a practicing Catholic as I understand,
and he does accept Vatican too, So I'm just using
him as an objective Catholic source who who as a
lawyer in this giant, you know, thousand source page book.
You know, he argues, I would say, definitively, and it
actually makes a lot of sense with all the other
research that isn't Catholic, you know, I mean, Dave mcgallan
is not Catholic, but his or was not Catholic. He's
passed away. But you know, his book was not focused
on religion, but it kind of came to the same
conclusions that you had. The deep state basically interested in
trying to co opt large religious institutions, and you will
find that this is very common. And just think about
it from the deep state perspective. Wouldn't you want to
use the engine of something like Catholicism for your pert Yeah,
I mean Brzenski in between two ages, he says in
the first few chapters of the book that American and
Americanism has to capture and use these big institutions like
the caloch Church. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And this is probably the most conspiratorial type interview
that I've done on this show. I've said often though
that I believe the people who are in control of
our civilization right now are very evil, and this is
just opening up the Pandora's box to look at the
kind of evil that they're doing. These people are diabolical geniuses,
and this is the war between good and evil, which
is why it's so important for Christians to stay in prayer,
to study philosophy and good solid the and to not
be taken in by this stuff. Because when you fully
grasp the amount of conditioning that you've been put through
in your life growing up in the second half of
the twentieth century, in the twenty first century. It's you
have to go back to first principles and reevaluate all
your assumptions about the world. So, and that's a little
closing thought.
Speaker 2: I guess, well, one other thing I would say to Catholics,
and I formerly was Catholic, is that there are plenty
of Catholic books that will vindicate what I'm saying, the
most obvious of which are the papal and cyclicals of
the last couple of centuries. And I'm not saying read
all of them, but if anybody does want to delve
into that, you can. I would recommend a couple of things.
I would say, read first and foremost Leo the thirteenth
and cyclical Humanum Janus on Freemasonry. Then I would say
read the Tan Books, the Tan Publisher, the Popes against
the modern errors. And then if you read those two things,
you'll see that you know, this is not a crackpot
conspiracy theory, but something that the papacy has been talking
about for a long time. In fact, years old, there
was a whole slew of anti Masonic papal and cyccles.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that, honestly, that kind of thing was really what
got me interested in Catholicism was seeing how the popes
and the Church were really at odds with this evil
agenda in early in the twentieth century. And I'm sad
to say that it's lost a lot of ground in
the second half. But anyway that those encyclicals are definitely
eye opening. To be sure, we need to just show
on Freemason recent time in their battle of the Catholic Church.
That would be interesting, Yeah, it would be.
Speaker 2: I I've also been reading a cult Renaissance Church of Rome,
which is a critique of the Renaissance era papacy by
Michael Hoffman. I think he makes a very compelling case.
I think he's very weak when he tries to explain
the first millennium of the Church, but I think for
the second millennium of the Church, he also makes a
very interesting case that it's not like everything was rosy,
you know, prior to the French Revolution, right, there was
a lot of the same kinds of hermetic, gnostic, Platonic
and cabalistic influence prior to you know, the modern Enlightenment
period as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I was saying on the last show that
this kind of worldview we've been talking about is a
sort of form of gnosticism, And really narcissism has been
around since the first century of the Church. It's waxed
and waned in its influence and presence. But really, when
you start to think that you can use your willpower
and technology to override the laws of God and the
natural law He's written into reality, that is the form
of nissism trying to escape physical reality. Anyway, So that
would be my thought on it.
Speaker 2: I would totally agree, And just having a discussion with
some people today about this, we were kind of arguing
about the question of race, ethnicity, gender, these kinds of things.
And when you believe in the goodness of God as
a creator, which gnostics don't, when you do believe that
God is a good creator, you suddenly don't have as
much of a problem with there being other ethnicities, other races,
and different genders. That real diversity is not an issue
for you. You're not worried about it. And for Orthodox
you know, we have our tradition of iconography being done
a certain way always. You can't you can't like make
up some kind of new way to do icons, and
that's because we believe that they don't just show us
a window into heaven. But I banography also confirms the
veracity and truth of history. So if there's a saint
like Saint Moses the Black who was a famous black man,
who's a saint, you know, he and his icon, he's
going to retain his physical characteristics, in his race and
his gender. And you know, in the in the Book
of Revelation, when when John sees into heaven, when he
sees the eternal state, he says he sees every race, tribe, tongue,
and ethnicity present. Uh. And that's because, of course Christ
died for all, there's no question about that. But Christ
dying for all does not mean that he wipes out
people's history and ethnicity anymore than it means he wipes
out gender. So that's why it's very important for us
that you don't you know, you know Jesus. Think about Jesus.
When he's resurrected, he doesn't become pans you know, pan gender,
pan racial Jesus. He becomes a no longer subject to
to death. Well technically speaking, he wasn't subject death, but
he willingly underwent death. You know what I'm saying. In
his resurrected state, it's still the same Jesus because he
has a hole in his side. Thomas puts his fingers
in and he says, you know, he says that we
will be like him. We'll have the same type of resurrection,
which does not negate our historical existence and who we were.
Speaker 1: Sure, So if you're a black Christian, you die and
you're resurrected, you're going to still be a black resurrected Christian.
Speaker 2: Right, absolutely, yeah. I mean, this is the thing about
Babel and the new world order, globalism, transhumanism, It is Babel.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: They say we want to make a power to Heaven
in our own name, right, And that's contrasted with Abraham,
who builds an altar to the Lord and calls him
the name of the Lord. So Abraham's religion is based
around theology and faith first, and babel Worldly religion, the
City of Man, as Augustine called it, is based around
the idea of man will be God. And that's what
transhumanism is. It's just a repeating of that, and Babel
is still manifesting today in globalism. Babel is the idea
of wrecking all the different cultures and nations and tribes
into one giant blob run by Skynet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that is what's going on in Europe with
the Muslim invasion and the United States and even in China.
They're trying to do this in every country that has
a national mono culture, they're trying to turn it into
the New World Order, corporatistic gray glob.
Speaker 2: So exactly. Yeah, yeah, totally agree.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, Jay Dyer, thanks for coming on. That
was a great chat. I hope to have you back
soon to talk about some more theological issues if that's
amenable to you, Sure anytime, all right, Well, I sure
appreciate it. Man, God be with you, all right.
Speaker 2: And I would add two that if people are interested
in my book is still available, and if you would
like to get a copy of it, please get it
from me and not Amazon because Amazon undercuts authors. My
book is not in occult book. It is a comparative
religion analysis of different movies and films in three hundred
and sixty three pages with four hundred four footnotes, and
it includes very subtle critiques of things like Darwinism and
atheism in under the guise of film analysis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'm kind of still kind of new at
the podcast game. So I forgot the plug section. I
also wanted to say, if you go into podcast Addict
and search Jaydyer, you'll get jay'son Analysis RSS feed on
there and get all this great content. He's been putting
out some awesome stuff lately. Maybe you have another method
they can find that feed as well.
Speaker 2: Well. It should be on all the major feeds like that.
It's on Spreaker, and it's on iTunes, and you know,
you can always go to YouTube the same. My my
stuff goes out to all those areas.
Speaker 1: Good deal, all right, man, Well thanks again and you
have a good eating all right.
Speaker 2: Thank you,