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