Lucifer’s Evolutionary Babel – Jay Dyer

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

of nissism trying to escape physical reality. Anyway, So that would be my thought on it.

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.

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.