Ep.486: Unveiling Metaphysics: The Roots of Western Thought w/ Michael King

Hello and welcome to the Corning Turner Podcast. My guest today is Michael King and we're going to discuss the roots of philosophy and how that led us to the spiritual battle that we are in today. And as you know, I talk about this quite often. These are very, very intertwined. I think of philosophy as like an operating system.

If you're working in OS, you may not understand all the parts inside of it, but that is the framework and you can't step outside of it. So it's really important that we understand the philosophical precepts that have led us to... the battles that we're in, particularly the dialectical warfare that we're experiencing currently. And so we're going to dive into some of that today with Michael King. If you follow me on Twitter, you've probably seen us engage on there.

And I think this is so funny because I majored in philosophy and I was told it was one of the most useless majors. I would never do anything with it. And it's actually arguably... what I do more of than anything currently. I'm still questionable on the whole, can you make a living as a philosopher? I still have not managed to do that. So maybe on that they were right, but I would say that it was very far from useless because it's...

Whether or not you subscribe to these philosophers in terms of their precepts and their presuppositions, or whether you have read them and understand them, you are experiencing... the through line of the metaphysical and epistemological warfare that we are currently in the midst of. And so I think that's why it's actually really important to discuss. I just published a Substack article on the woke right.

how the radical left playbook became the right secret weapon. This was born out of a tweet that I did outlining continental philosophy, which I think is really the soil which... Most of our anti-realist worldviews have been fertilized, shall we say, unfortunately. And I think there are a lot of people who have used this. as a weapon. They've used it both on the left and the right and for dialectical purposes. for purposes of dialectical negation.

otherwise known as Alfhaven. I've talked about this quite extensively, but for those who aren't familiar with the term, it's kind of an oxymoronic German term that means to lift up and preserve while simultaneously canceling and tearing down. And this is, of course, you know, a key component of Hegel's dialectic, which you can find on my substack. I did do a little preview of my upcoming book.

For those who are paid subscribers, you can get access to that. And I'm hoping that this summer I'll have the books finished. I need a bit of time to sit with that. But for now, I do have a really big chunk of it available as a preview, and we go into all of these concepts there, since I do think Hegel was a very pivotal... cornerstone in philosophy and especially in political, dialectical, and psychological work.

So this is Michael King. On his Twitter, he says he's exposing mystery Babylon and the dynasty that yields it as the ring of power. So I think that that is a, he's done actually a great job of tracing a lot of that through what might seem quite esoteric, but I would argue is just hidden in plain sight and he shows you the receipt. So Michael, how are you doing today?

Good, how are you? I am doing well, thank you. So, I think we have a lot to unpack. Where would you like to start? Well, I'd like to start by... Saying that, you know, a lot of people who recognize me will think of me as like, I do geopolitics or bloodline conspiracy stuff. You know, that's most of what you'll find on my Twitter. But like you, I'm actually a philosophy major, too.

And yeah, I can attest that you don't really make any money doing this whatsoever. So you're right on that count as well. But I'd like to say that... Well, where I want to go with this, I made a thread where I wanted to trace the Prisia Theologia and the whole new sphere, one world government type surveillance system. We're eventually going to try and like... put brain chips and everyone's had connected into the cloud and not the cloud the cloud world is pretty clownish too

With the esoteric aspect, I'm actually arguing it comes down to Spanish masonry whenever you hear people talk about, oh, the Kabbalah just came from Judaism and it came from these fake Jews and the Kazarian Mafia. That's actually obscuring what happened in Spanish masonry where you had a whole bunch of synthesis between like pagan, especially Punic paganism. Great. Christian Gnosticism, which we know isn't really Christianity, but I just call it Christian Gnosticism to simplify it, then

Sufi mystic traditions, and you had some Kabbalistic Talmudism, but it's a synthesis of all of them. So there's a whole lot of false narratives, which we don't really need to get into. It's a long-term project and I see this interview as part of it, which I appreciate you giving me a platform for, but I'd like to start by... going to the basics of the problem of the one and the many and universals and particulars.

Yeah, that would be great. I think that that's really relevant to what we're experiencing today with the new age that has become the new thought movement, right? It's basically a new iteration of the Neoplatonic. you know, return to the undifferentiated all, where they felt that the one was superior to the many. And this is why we see this constant kind of obliteration of any distinctions, any kind of differentiation. Things have to be synthesized as opposed to unique.

aspects and this is why we can't have male and female we need to worship the hermaphroditic entities. We need to have the transgender blurring. We can't have Jews and Christians and Muslims. We need to have theosophical soup.

so we can usher in the one world religion and leading us towards the one world governance and so on. I mean, the list is very long, just a couple of examples. But yeah, I think that's a great place to start. And of course, this is really... uh you know born out of the ancient mystery cults the the ancient greeks of course they called it the undifferentiated all right this is uh

their notion of the one and the theosophist renamed it they said this is source and the whole journey of the human experience is to return to that source so yeah

It's been rebranded and renamed. And one of the issues that you have whenever I've had these people come up to me and try challenging me to debate or whatever, and what makes it sort of difficult to engage these kind of people is These guys who peddle these kind of ideas, they have mythology that justifies their nonsense, but it's always made up and retconned.

right on the spot and a good a good example is these holy grail myths and i've made threads like posting about how they they're like saying oh yeah well um to drink from the holy grail as to Be aware of the ever constant presence of God. And of course, that's that's the one that means obliterating distinctions. That means universal brotherhood, which is what you were talking about, getting back to the source. Like it's all the same thing, but they have.

they have different vocabulary for it so if if you you use the wrong terms that's not particular to whatever nonsense they're peddling they're like oh hey you you didn't actually research yourself blah blah blah blah like yeah it's like it's like if you're if you're not like really well researched on this stuff and don't know how to wave through a lot of details it's like putting jello to a wall also they can make they can make um

They can make just nitpicking words and evasion look like debate if you're not familiar with the kind of card tricks they use also. Yeah, absolutely. This is, it's essentially a critical theory. I mean, this is what... I always know I'm dealing with a subversive whenever they play the nuance game. I'm like, okay, so we're going to get into the wheeze and you're going to argue with me that I don't understand it because I haven't used the exact same vocabulary, which you've already.

You've already subverted that vocabulary anyway because you've redefined the terms, right? They take the same word, but their glossary has a different definition than the glossary that is, you know, the established. definition. So you're not really, you're not speaking the same language anyway, but they will use that. I get this all the time. I mean, when I started talking about the theosophists and I was pointing out that it's a direct trajectory from the Neoplatonists.

All the Neoplatonist stans came out of the woodworks, and their big argument to me was that I didn't understand it. I hadn't read it closely enough, or I was misinterpreting it. And so they bring up all of these nuances. and tell me why I was wrong. And really, ultimately, they're missing the telos. It doesn't really matter, which oftentimes even these various thinkers may have disputes within.

within the same school of thought. But that's not because their telos or their underlying presuppositions are different. It's because they're having a battle of ego, oftentimes. Ego, power. And sometimes it's just dialectical theater. And we see that often, too, where they're not really fighting each other. It's almost like a stage catfight so that you can churn the dialectic.

Yeah, like, going from, like, Mazzini, he came out of the Carbonari, and he's like, oh, hey, you Carbonari guys aren't doing it. Like, let me create the mafia in young Europe. Like, that's an example right there. Oh, yeah, and then that, like, that... internet research agency agent matters pattern who's like hey like Why aren't you paying attention to Marx fighting Bakun and you're a shell? It's like, no, that's like straight up theater. What are you talking about?

well for those who don't know there's this like agent who's been arguing with us who actually has about 50 sock accounts that we've repeatedly blocked but he's still he's still going on harassing us so yeah story for another day not really relevant to this conversation but there's there's tons of nonsense when you start trying to wade through this and talk about it in the public

but i think the tactic is important for people to recognize so like you know the individual battles we've had online may not be as relevant to other people but what is relevant is to notice this tactic so i've gotten to i just just out of being sheer busyness. Like I don't have the time to engage with all these people. So I have to start recognizing tactics. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But what I've noticed is that when I'm engaging with someone who plays this game,

I call it the nuanced game. Really, it's critical theory is what it is. It's a constant skepticism, right? We're going to keep doubting you, doubting you, doubting you until we undermine the very foundation on what you said. So when they do that to me, I'm like, okay, I recognize this tactic and I'm not dealing with a good faith actor.

I want to engage so that we can, because sometimes these concepts are difficult for people. And I certainly don't claim to have all the answers either. So I'm happy to flesh things out and discuss the ideas and the concepts. When I find somebody engaging in that type of tactic, I know that they're there either to undermine, demoralize, or discredit me, and that's not a good use of my time.

Oh yeah, and since you brought up the concept of eroding foundations this is why i i want i'm trying to focus on just the basics over here because my my whole hypothesis is that If you can get the basics down, no. Know what kind of data points to plug into.

the right variables you can have a perfect defense system against this and it has has three components it requires you to understand induction that's observation that's that's the role of science and the limits of science also reason logic the limits to that so you don't conflate um i'm i'm stealing thunder from from where i want to go later in the show actually when you see people when you see people conflate like natural laws with natural law itself like

We observe our universal principles at the levels of laws and logic. That's actually devastating a thought, and I can get more into that later. And then the third one I'd argue is revelation and metanarrative. So, you know, both those things I described, induction, deduction. with the kind of system i advocate both of those are actually revelation but they're more general revelation where special revelation we more of the metanarrative our our role in the whole

cosmos and the significance of our experience in human life ultimately. So I'd say you need a narrative to give you purpose and you also need those prior methodologies from general revelation to orient all it and navigate through all this. Yeah, I would agree with that. So you want to start with the one versus the many. And this does seem to be the ongoing battle. Where do we come from and why is it relevant?

I'd say one very important concept to grasp is one versus the many or universals in particular. So it's very obvious that. We live in a universe of both oneness and plurality. It's like you have no causal chain of events, for example, that's an isolation. And in some way, whatever happens affects the big picture. as you could say, but also it's not really a closed system as we think of it.

Rather, if you emphasize the one or the many, you paradoxically get monism, rather you're a pantheist or an atheist. And I'd argue that if you disorient any of those approaches, if you confuse the one for the ultimate or the many for the ultimate, you end up collapsing subject-object distinction and you end up in... The wizard circle where these I'd argue Spanish mason-derived grifters, rather it's Marxism, fascism, any of them.

can cast spells on you and bamboozle you and put you in some arbitrary category, have you waste your time fighting the wrong battles until they steal your civilization, destroy everything. And where do you feel like this is? Because I feel like a lot of that is very intuitive for most people, right? But then we get to Plato and Aristotle, and I feel like this is kind of where this battle... Really, I think in terms of Western culture and Western thought.

is, you know, that's the crux of it. And then you have the Neoplatonists, who I feel like they really solidify this whole, you know, discrepancy between the one versus the many, and they were glorifying the one, right, the one. is far superior to the many. And then I feel like everything is really downstream from there. It's either you follow the line of neoplatonic subversion or, you know, you're...

And I'm curious your thoughts on this, but I don't necessarily subscribe to the whole, like, you know. Plato versus Aristotle as a villain or a hero. I think that both of them had merit. I think that there were elements that were more useful in each of them and less useful.

Well, that also gets into the whole, this might go over some listeners' heads, but if you've heard the debate between... radical realism and moderate realism it gets it gets like i really don't it's it's like if you can recognize that Aristotle and Plato are kind of kind of similar and agreed on more than they disagreed on then

It shows you that that whole debate is framed arbitrarily as well. Like a lot of this is just made up distinctions to obscure things and get people to take sides when they really don't need to. Yeah, one more thing I want to add to that, though, is... Another thing that's been rehashed, as well as Neoplatonism, is actually Epicureanism. So Neoplatonism is once you go to the one, but Epicureanism and Adamism is once you go to the many. So once we have atheistic systems.

It's sort of a rehash of that, but it still gets to the same point because it all ends up being monism where one is everything. The ultimate being is one thing and we're all just sort of appendages of that experiencing itself. Right. And this is what we see today, right? This is what we see with the new thought leaders, with the... Even with the technocrats who are trying to foment singularity. This is all about how. So I always frame it as being kind of a dialectic just to bring it into.

you know, modern-day content. but I always frame it as this is a dialectic that is ultimately the end goal is the same, the telos is the same, but you have the technocrats who talk about it's more of a force. singularity using technology, but then you have the spiritual oneness. where they convince you that we're already one. Our consciousness is already all connected. And therefore, what difference? I feel like they're laying the groundwork so that you can accept the technological similarity.

I've seen videos where people ask an AI question like what's the fundamental meaning of the universe and the AIs actually get into You see, you're stuck in the illusion of separation where really... We aren't separate, but we have our egos and everything and our arbitrary desires where we think we're different, but really we're all the same being. So let go of your passions, your wants.

so and what what that translates to an authoritarian language is stop being selfish stop caring about your rights and just let us put a boot on your neck or you're the problem Yeah, that's exactly right. They keep telling us we have to separate from our selfishness. Our selfishness is the problem. Right? That's the language that you hear from the spiritually ascended, if you will. who are part of the psyche in class and know way more than us and therefore they should rule over us.

You know, some would argue is what Plato is outlining with his philosopher kings. I don't think so. Yes, I was actually about to get to that. I was actually about to get to that. Yeah, so where I want to get to, we're not going to be able to get to this in this first talk, but I eventually want to get to both Jonathan Edwards and Emmanuel Kant.

Jonathan Edwards, he's not perfect. In Freedom of the Will, he definitely contradicts himself wildly. I'm not sure if you actually read that, but I'm just giving an example. his general framework is what i advertise for then emmanuel con he's the one he's the one who pushed altruism where you know Morality is defined by abstract categorical imperative, so he removes teleology from what's right and wrong, where I would say there is an abstract set of right and wrong things.

but it's derived from God's law, and God's law is based on his own character, and... the best thing to do the most selfish thing for us to do if you if you define selfish is looking for your best interest is to pursue a relationship with him and follow this so he he separates self-interest from this abstract

law of categories that we need to abide by and that's where you get like oh like you're not listening to the government stop being selfish Yeah, I just did a whole thread on Kant, and yeah, I feel like he was really very instrumental in the anti-realist framework. And it was done very soon. Yeah. I want to get to him, but I want to lay the prior groundwork for... Yeah, how you end up getting like the dialectic between rationalism and empiricism, because, you know,

Once you get that, like the kind of errors Kant makes are very clear. Because I remember before I studied the Enlightenment, I hear people criticizing Kant and it just kind of went over my head. But then once I got in the weeds with Descartes, Spinoza, Locke. Hobbs, all these guys. It's like, oh, wow, this guy's a wizard. Yeah, literally. Literally a wizard. Yeah. Alright, so who do you want to go to next, then?

Well, I want to actually... so i want back to what i was saying about universals versus particular so if you're if you want to get out of the dialectic of the one versus the many which i'd argue goes back to democratism or epicureanism versus neoplatonism I do agree with you that the whole match of Plato is a big part of it. I just think there's another part of dialectic, which might not be as significant because it all ends up in the same monism, but...

Yeah, it all comes down to misunderstanding the one and the many. So. We need to be able to understand universals in particular. So a universal, that's pretty much just... an abstract category for if you have a predicate like the grass as green that's universal and the grass the thing you're talking about that's particular though grass can also be an abstract category which in a sense as a universal also.

This comes down to do our thoughts and do our language reflect reality? And if you say yes to that, you're called a realist. And that's the system that Courtney Turner and I both advocate for. So I'm going to read two quotes. First, I'm going to go on to Plato's dialogue with Euthythero after this, but I want to let Courtney response. I'm sure that she's going to have a lot to say. So the first quote is from...

I'll just say before you read the quote, I'll just say, so you framed it as does our language reflect reality, right? And abstract categories in our head, yes. Right. And so the inverse of that would be that our language shapes it. And that's the first law of Hermeticism, which is mentalism. And that's what we're seeing pervasively today. So that's the dialectic. That's the, yeah.

Yes, exactly, exactly. So yeah, first one I'm going to read from is from Robert L. Raymond's New Systematic Theology. And this starts at page 50. An overwhelming of particulars. Everything in the universe is viewed by the philosopher as a particular. If every particular man encountered and remembered the man himself as a particular composer of particulars.

Remained in him unique and completely unclassified and unclassifiable. Again, just as would be the case if man had no reasoning ability, knowledge and communication would be impossible. for nothing would have meaning. This is so because it's so providence of universals. the all-encompassing concepts is to give particulars their meaning. No one states the reason for necessity of universals for knowledge more plainly than Francis Schaeffer. so this is onto francis shaffer and He is not silent.

The Greek philosophers spent much time grappling with this problem of knowledge, and the one who wrestled with it the most was Plato. He understood that in the area of knowledge, as in the area of morals, there must be more than particulars. If there is to be a meaning in the area of knowledge,

You have particulars by which we mean the individual things we see in the world. At any given moment, I am faced with thousands, indeed literally millions of particulars just in what I glance with my eyes. What are the universals which give these particulars meaning? This is the heart of the problem of epistemology and the problem of knowing. And by the way, epistemology means like theory of knowledge. These are big words.

It has a simple meaning. There's a lot of academic drivel that obscures things and makes people's eyes glow. It's literally just the study of knowledge, how we know things. This is not only a linguistic thing. It is the way we know. It is not just an abstract theory or some kind of scholasticism, but the matter of actually knowing and knowing that we know.

The Greek philosophers, and especially Plato, were seeking for universals which would make the particulars meaningful. How can we find universals which are large enough to cover the particulars that we can know we know? Plato, for example, put forward the concept of ideas or another. So for those of you who have read a little bit of basic philosophy books, his ideas would be in the world of forms also, just putting that there, which would provide the needed universal.

This is Plato's solution, an ideal somewhere that would cover all the particular, all the possible particulars. That's the world of eternal forms. The Greeks thought of two ways to come to this. One was the sense of the polis. The word the polis had meaning beyond merely a geographic city. It had to do with the structure of society.

Some Greeks had an idea that the polis, the society, could supply the universal. And we see this today with the fallacy of consensus and, oh, so-and-so thinks this, those groups think this. You know, we got to go along with it. Politics on the whole, but yes. Our consensus of experts is Morges of Plato's philosopher king. It's like a woman. But the Greeks were wise enough to... wise enough soon to see that this was unsatisfactory.

Because then one is right back to the 51% vote or the concept of the small elite, which there's the experts. So one would end with Plato's philosopher kings. for example but this too was even limited even if one were to choose the philosopher kings and the polis eventually they were not going to be able to give a universal which would cover all the particulars So the next step was to move back to the gods on the grounds that the gods can give something more than the polis.

But the difficulty is that the gods, and this even includes Plato's, because Plato still had the one, he still had the demiurge, he had his own gods, he just wanted to have his cake, and you two, I'd argue, simply were inadequate. They are personal gods in contrast to the Eastern gods who include everything, there's your monism again, and are impersonal.

But they were not big enough. Consequentially, because their gods were not big enough, the problem remained unsolved for the Greeks. Just as society did not solve the problem because it was not big enough, So did the gods did not settle because they were not big enough. The gods fought amongst themselves and had differences over all kinds of petty things. All the classical gods put together were not enough. which is why the concept of faith in Greek literature

Which one never knows for sure. Rather the fates are controlled by the gods or rather the fates control the gods. Are the fates simply the vehicles of action of the gods? Or are the fates the universal behind the gods? And do they manipulate the gods? There is this constant confusion between the fates and the gods as the final control. This expresses the Greeks' deep comprehension that their gods were simply inadequate.

They were not big enough with regard to the fates, and they were not big enough with regards to knowledge. So though Plato and the Greeks understood the necessity of finding universal, And saw that Unless there was a universal, nothing was going to turn out right. They never found the place. which the universal could come from, neither from the polis nor from the gods. And this is from He is There and He is Not Silent, pages 37 to 41. So yeah, that's the quote. Where is this from?

He is there and he is not silent. It's part of Francis Schaeffer's apologetics trilogy. I highly recommend it. By the way, Francis Schaeffer back in the 70s, he was like, By the way, you know in 50 years, people are going to be so confused. They're not going to know what a man and woman is. Right. He was one of the only guys ahead of that. Yeah. Wow. I'm not familiar with him. I'm going to have to look. Okay, 1972, Theory of Knowledge in Christianity.

Okay, interesting. Well, interestingly... Robert Alvarez. Sorry, Robert Alvarez. Have you heard of him? Who? Robert L. Raymond? Mm-mm, no. well i got i got the one before that from justification of knowledge i have to recommend i have to recommend robert l raymond though like his new systematic theology the first few thousand pages of that are really good for epistemology

He gets into some weird reform kind of stuff. I mean, I technically am reform, but he gets into some things that I consider a little bit nonsense once you get past the first few thousand pages on epistemology, but he's pretty good too. Okay. All right. I will have to add that to my list. Thank you.

Well, that was a great quote. Interestingly enough, Plato, we were discussing this, but Plato did say that you can't be a philosopher and an atheist. So he did have his God, but I would argue it was much more akin to a Gnostic demiurge type. Although, not exactly, right? Because it's a proto, and you can't superimpose that onto a framework that didn't exist at that time. So I have a problem with people referencing it that way. But he did definitely believe in some sort of atheistic.

kind of a uh create creator i would definitely argue that he did well it was it was both of the yes the creator but he also had He didn't really spell it out, but he tried having his caconing into the world of forms, so he ended up making the one, which would be the unity of the forms, another god, so it's like there's the...

There's the god that's the blueprint, and there's the god that's the architect. And then, of course, you have the Gnostics running with that. The Gnostics and Neoplatonists would turn on. return the world of forms with with eternal reference points like there'd be a form of justice over here there'd be a form of greenness over here there'd be a form of like pretty much every predicate and they'd be orbiting the good well the goodness that was Plato's system they changed that to the fullness

and you have these, uh, Pleromon Archons around them, and eventually... The bonus is the Pleroma. Yeah, yeah. Pleroma. Well, yeah, yeah, you had the Pleroma, and then you had the Archons. I got that mixed up, the Archons. So, yeah, and then they'd end up going back to, like, what Plato actually was criticizing. you know wisdom would become so fierce they'd go back to personifying the forms which plato ended up trying to get away from in the first place also yep yeah

They kind of inverted it. And that's why I say it's a Neoplatonic subversion. I think the Neoplatonists subverted both Plato and Aristotle. But this idea of what he's trying to... What the ancient Greeks were trying to address, this idea of having some sort of a universal that would help to ground the particulars, is quite profound, actually.

And I think it is really the question of all human existence because it's just intrinsic that we are limited, right? We can't know everything, but yet we're curious beings, right? We want to know. We're striving to learn and to grow, and hopefully we use that. That's from the gift of free will, right? Hopefully we use that as a vehicle for morality and for virtue.

But we all just know inherently, like every being knows that they are limited, that we can't know everything, but we also can't function. without having a universal that we agree on. We can't function without taking some things as face value, whether or not we know for sure, which is why there's an element of faith, right? There has to be some sort of faith because otherwise we would just be perennially paralyzed by our not knowing.

That's why I say revelation is necessary. The methodology and the narrative have to come from the same source too. Mm-hmm.

because like if you don't have methodology also it's like if there's no methodology to map like if you can't you make propositions like but you can't really dissect them you can't say wait how do you verify this like then you're back to the paralyzation also it's like it's like the faith faith and methodology have to go hand in hand also and that's the only way like you can't have one without the other That's actually why the rationalists and empiricists are wrong, because

They say that faith has to be built on the foundation of those two so that it ends up just collapsing all of them in on each other to where you end up getting the same monism. It implodes into monism. Yeah, I think this is so, some of it I do think is organic, like where people are, you know, genuinely, authentically searching and they end up.

you know, one extreme or the other. But I do think that there's also, and I'm curious your thoughts on this, I do think there are also, you know, people who have a weaponized these extremes for dialectical means.

what are your thoughts on that yeah i mean it's it's it's it's interesting it's interesting because um you know renee decar and um oh shoot what was what was the name of that what was the name of that guy you remember Nicholas Montague, I don't know if it was Montague, talking about the rationalist that came after Descartes, who sided under him.

Nicholas, it's one of these French last names I have trouble pronouncing. Oh, Montesquieu would be much later, so, right? I don't think it would be Montesquieu. No, Nicholas Marable. Nicholas Marable. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it right, but it spells something like what might be Marable. Something like that. I can- I can pull- I didn't pull- Oh, Mel- Melibranche.

Melobanch, yeah, Melobanch, yeah, yeah. They were both Jesuit-trained, and actually, Melobanch, Nicholas Melobanch, he was like a priest and had quite a lot of... connections to spy systems and Thomas Hobbes. I'm very suspicious of him too because like Thomas Hobbes he came in he came in and was using christian language to appeal to christians but then the way he defined things he defined god and religion just out of the question like yeah we need to get all this out of the way so it's like

I think those guys are probably the Weber agents, but not all of them were. I think some of them would be sincere, but they would also be managed. Yeah, that guy. That guy. Yeah, a French oratorian, right? I'm always concerned. I'm always a little skeptical of the oratorians as a whole anyway, because it's a... there's no record right so usually when you want things to be

It's the most effective, right? That's why discourse is so powerful for creating, like, the dialogue of consensus, right? The whole Delphi method of dialogue and discourse. I think that that's partly because it's so effective, but also because there's no record of it, right? So I think that that's how the mob works. Essentially, everything's done.

Keep that window, keep that window off to the side, obviously, because we're going to, we're going to go back to him. We're going to go back to him because he's, he's, I'd argue, I'd argue he's, he's responsible for the march to deism or so Descartes was. Oh, interesting. because he was he was a student he was a student for Descartes and he ended up being really influential for live bands which i'm sure you know like live bands more well known but yeah like

Leibniz, yeah. So there's a lot of dispute around Leibniz. So some people, I know Alexander McGee, who wrote Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. He also wrote the Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism. He argues that liveness was very immersed in the Rose Christian circles. Yes, okay, so he...

Live Ends had an esoteric journal, actually, that he never published, but he actually came up with symbolic math 150 years before it allegedly came out. You know what symbolic math is, right? You connect numbers to esoteric, it's 100% Pythagorean occultism. So I believe I agree with I agree with McGee on this. I think I think people like him were also agents. There's a reason why I think he was expelled from the English Corps and wasn't allowed to come back in.

I think that's actually a good thing because that means he didn't do as much damage to English and thus American thought as he could have also. Oh, I want to find this book. He didn't publish it. Do they have any records of it? Yes, they do. They do. Do you know where we can find that? I have to. I have to. I don't remember. I don't remember the name. If you look up.

It might be, I think it's called Esoteric Notes. It's Esoteric Notes. It might be where you can find it. So look up Liveman's Esoteric Notes, and I think you'll find it. Okay. Liveman's Esoteric Notes. Um, well, interesting. It comes up under Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Uh, oh no, that's exoteric philosophy. Yeah, metaphysics. Lecture note?

I don't know. I'm going to have to do some digging on this, but... no it was it was it was either esoteric journal or esoteric notes it was it was unpublished but there's like It's one of these obscure archive things where I found it. I don't have it on hand right now. No worries, no worries. I did some digging in preparation for this. Yeah, awesome. All right, well, I will have to, oh, I think we may have found it. Okay, esoteric tradition. All right, well, yeah, we'll dig for that.

But interesting. I'm very curious about that because that is like an ongoing debate in the field of philosophy, whether or not Liveness was really a good guy who was trying to... you know, was oriented towards truth and he was being wrongfully subverted and aligned with these esoteric.

institutions as a way of discrediting him and then those who are saying that no we have lots of evidence to uncover that he was uh you know speaking in aesopian language and he was you know, tied in with the esoteric. I don't know how they get to this later after going. Okay, we'll do it after this. Well, let me, we can, we can shelf, we can shelf. I'll just say this really quick. So it is, it is interesting about, you know.

Okay, so Aristotle, Plato, when they were talking about the thing, the substance behind a particular, they called substance the... universe behind a particular so like the grass is green or the idea of grass itself they'd say that That's matter participating in a substance to give off instances of that substance. So what's interesting is live beans.

called that a monad. So on one hand, the monad was substance, and it could be framed as a plurality, but monad is also the Greek word for the one, going back to the one, the many, but then...

This goes back, this goes back to that Nicholas, I forgot how to pronounce his last name, guys. He had something called occasionalism, occasionalism. So it's like, it's like, substance is out here and then it has this has this causal flow of instances but they have this idea where like the occasions had this. symphonic harmony with the universe as a whole, but they completely subverted the causal chain of events. So they completely subverted primary causation and secondary causation.

It's all like the mind of God constantly creating. So I'd also say it's like subverting the Christian doctrine of providence and like confounding creation of providence. So, a ball never actually hits the cue ball those those instances are are happening simultaneously but each of those cause and effect change from the substances are their own contained microcosm mirroring the harmony of the universe so like

Pretty suspicious if you ask me. I would agree with that, yes. I would agree with that as well. but like it's it's it's worded it's it's worded to where like you can see it like hey like because you know like Okay, well, the way he defines the monism, not monism, I just used the word for it earlier. Remember the mon word I used? The monad? Yeah, the way he defines it, it's like...

That's not plurality right there. But then once you get to the machinery and look under the hood, it's like, well, this results in monism and deism. You've got the same problems. Yes. Yeah. Oh, this is a good graphic of it. It's a spiraling up to the infinite monad. Yeah. So, okay, so then we've got the, so then we move towards the Neoplatonist.

And they're focused on the monism, right? Everything is one. You know, this is all the whole journey is to return to the undifferentiated all. We have the, you know, there were... a couple of different, right? Like it was Plotinus was the most prominent and then we have Origin and... Yeah, so I don't know, where do you want to go next? I know you, I jumped ahead a bit, so. No, you're good, you're good. Well, I wanted to go back, so.

I read quotes from Robert Raymond and Francis Schaeffer describing the issue. So I wanted to go back to a primary source of Plato himself. Okay. apology of socrates so i sent you the link to this the whole thing so before after i sent this i trimmed it down and put a little bit of commentary in there so i'll be i'll be reading from both my commentary and and the

dialogue, a copy, and a paste. But The context for this is, so this shows, this is just a primary source showing how the Greeks wrestled with universals from particulars and how to categorize and distinguish things. So the context is Socrates and Euphythro met by chance outside the court in Athens where Socrates is about to be tried on charges for corrupting the youth and for impiety.

For not believing in the city's gods. And introducing false gods. So Euphithor is there. To prosecute his father for murder. And he ends up. He ends up having a conflict of conscience because that means he's pushing for his father's own death. And he uses Socrates as a sounding board to soothe his conscience, only for Socrates to expose his cognitive dissonance.

Really rattle you, Frithro's cage. So I'm going to start here. My father and my family says you, Frithro. Flair angry with me for taking part in the murder of and prosecuting of my father. This shows Socrates how little regard. for for how little he knows about the gods and their piety so he says good heavens you fifth row and is your knowledge of religion and and things pious and impious so very exact that you are not afraid less

You too may be impious and bringing action against your father. So Socrates is like saying, hey, like. You're talking as if you have all the answers and what the essence of piety and impiety. So he's asking for what the universal is for piety and impiety and ultimately justice. Your fifth row response. the best of your fifth row socrates is this knowledge the knowledge of all such matters

To which in mock admiration Socrates replies, rare friend, I think that I cannot do better than be your disciple. So Socrates continues. I adjure you. Tell me the nature of piety and impiety, which you said you know so well. What is piety and what is impiety? So at this conjuncture... What Socrates is asking you fifth row is an exhibition of absolutely comprehension, not comprehensive knowledge of those two categories, a universal, so piety.

He says, good heavens, you Fethro, and is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact? that you are not afraid, lest you too may be doing an impious thing and bringing action against your father. Oh, no, no, I already read that. My bad. I lost my place in the page. what his piety was and piety. Without hesitation, your fifth row replies. So this is after Socrates asks for the universe. Without hesitation, your fifth row replies.

Piety is doing what I am doing. That is to say, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime. and not to prosecute as impiety. So he's going with, I'm upholding the abstract moral category. So he's actually answering like a Kantian about 2,000 years before Kant was around. After a brief interchange regarding Ufethro's

unquestioned commitment to belief in the Greek gods and Socrates acknowledged it of his inability to do so. The latter returns the original question. I would hear from you a more precise answer to the question, what is piety? When he asked, he only replied. doing as you do, charging your family with murder. But I did not ask you to give me one or two examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious.

This is what happens when you talk to people who... can't really justify unjustifiable beliefs to justify something. Instead of justifying the abstract for the position, they go off and give instances of what they're trying to explain as if that explains the general concept, which they can't justify. That's pretty much how all people who are doing Gnosis, which means just like arbitrary leap of faith knowledge, end up answering such questions.

Socrates clearly indicates that if the particular examples of piety are to be such, there must be a comprehensive universal which gives such care to them otherwise such acts are open to any interpretation but if an action can mean anything it means nothing so your fifth rule applies Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them. So Euthythero is willing to sharpen his definition when prompted by Socrates to the following.

what all the gods hate is pious or holy, and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Socrates then asks, ought we to inquire into the truth of this, Euphythro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority? What do you say? Because see, look, the problem is that... The Greek gods don't have infighting and squabbles all the time.

They're discussing individuals a lot of time, like Zeus turned into a bull and raped Europa. It's like they're not a sufficient reference point. So reluctantly, if there are replies, we should inquire. Where unto Socrates probes, the point which I asked should first, the point which I should first wish to understand is rather the holy as beloved by the gods. because it is holy or holy because it is beloved by the God.

So the Christians can actually account for this because for morality to be objective, it must have its grounds in the being of God himself, who is the principal and fountainhead of all that is. Thus, as the true universal that both the piety and morality have their reference to, God, he has the authority to determine right from wrong, which he has decreed and revealed, which likewise is the standard for piety too.

Of course, if it's objective, moral arguments can further be elaborated upon instead of just asserted, like I kind of am in summary. But back to the dialogue. Is piety loved by all gods? Ephithro. Yes, Socrates. Because it is pious or for some other reason, Ephithro. No, that is not the reason. So it does not have to enter. So it doesn't even enter his head that it could be otherwise. it's it's just it just is because it is if you if you see jay dyer debate people like

atheists on how to justify right and wrong. They just kind of go like, well, you don't hurt other people because it's just the right thing to do. They can't justify it. You see this conversation play out in so many different ways in the real world. It is love because it's pious and not pious because it's love. Yes. Then that which is dear to the gods, Euphithro, is not the definition of piety.

Then pious has been acknowledged by us to be love of God because it is pious, not to be pious because it is love. Thus you appear to me, you fifth row. When I ask you, what is the essence of piety to offer an attribute? So that's another example only. And not the essence. They are a tribute of being loved by all the gods. But you refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. I will ask you again, tell me once more what piety really is. Then your fifth row says,

I really do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean. For somehow or other, our arguments, on whatever ground we rest on, seem to turn around. So he can't answer it. Then he turns around and... walks away so the dialogue concludes with you fifth row dejected asserting i am in a hurry and must go now so socrates cries alas my companion will you leave me in despair so All this points to the fact that for the Greeks, piety is something independent of their two small gods.

something above the gods which they themselves do not determine and which remains beyond the grasp of unassisted human justification so yeah there was a couple times where i missed my spot and had to reread a line so i hope that was easy to follow but yeah do you have any comments on that Yeah, I mean, it's a lot. quite profound actually it's really interesting that

If you think about how, like, the timing of this, right? This is thousands of years ago, and it's proto-Christianity, right? So it's not like they have a frame. They don't have a reference for... the context in what he's really asking. Socrates is now asking him to go deeper than what he already knows. And I think it's really fascinating if you really think about it and try and put yourself in that time period.

To be asking those kinds of questions, it's really profound, which to me indicates that there's something intrinsic in humanity that wants to know. There's something intrinsic in humanity that... does know that it does have an intuitive sense. that there is something universal, that there is something that can make, I think the way to simplify this is that there is an absolute truth. I mean, you could say that that comes from God. That's determined by God.

But just even to ask that question is really profound. I mean, that's really what strikes me. Whenever I read these things, I don't know. But the way that he pokes at him until he... Basically has to reveal that he doesn't have the answer. And I think this is so interesting because it's so relevant today. We see this all the time. We see this type of Twitter space.

Yeah, well, that's true. But I think not just in, you know, not even just in religious battles, right? I think you see this type of sophistry both wittingly and unwittingly. where people think that they are sitting on a very solid foundation and it's not until they're really for to examine what they think they know that they realize that they don't know. Now, of course, there are always bad actors who are intentionally operating.

And there are people who are doing that for the purposes of intending to mislead or steer. you know, in the larger context of propaganda for social engineering. Those, of course, exist. But I think oftentimes people think that they're... sitting on a very solid foundation, but they've never looked at the foundation itself. And so they really think they know. What they don't know. They have no idea what they don't know.

And I think this is why we are seeing so much destabilization. Because, you know, as we began saying how... you know, X amount of years, people won't know if there's a man or a woman. I mean, things that are just so fundamentally obvious. But the reason why that can even be questioned and called into question is because people don't have a solid foundation. And if you don't have that, but they think they do. That's what's so fascinating about this. And I think what's really so precarious.

Thank you so much for watching. I hope you are enjoying. I just wanted to remind you that this is a viewer-sponsored show, so I really need your support. And you can do that by heading on over to CourtneyTurner.com. I spell my name like Courtney. That's C-O-U-R-T-E-N-A-Y-T-U-R-N-E-R. And the first thing you'll see is the follow me and that's all the ways you can connect with me and all the various podcast platforms that I'm on so you can pick your favorite.

Of course, the next will be the sub stack. And this is a great way that you can support the work I'm doing. And you will get all of the podcasts early and ad free if you are a paid subscriber of my sub stack. And I also put out articles on there as well. And so you will get access to that and also to the book club.

which I think we are going to be having to push it back a week, but we are going to be doing that in May. So you can join us for a discussion and it would be awesome to get to connect with all of you. If you're interested, check that out. That is CourtneySubsack.com. And I believe it is $8 a month, although we do have a founding membership as well.

So that is a great way that you can support me for what I believe is the price of a latte these days, once a month. So if you want to trade one of those out, I would greatly appreciate it. And then, of course, there's the snail mail option. And I have loved this so much because it's been such a treat to get handwritten letters. And some of them are so beautiful.

Really kind words of support, and I do really appreciate it. And you can also send fiscal support to Courtney Turner, 6041 Rural Plains Circle, Suite 110, number 106. Franklin, Tennessee, 37064. and that is a great way if you want the analog option so check that out That is listed on my website as well. And then we have other great affiliate products. And if you find something on there that suits your needs, that will be a great way that you can support my work as well.

So thank you all so much for watching, and if you want to see this continue, I hope that you will consider, if you're in a position to do so, to keep the work going. So I'll let you get back to the show, and I hope you're enjoying it. Thanks so much. Well, yeah, then what happens when people who even have good intentions become sophists is...

Once they're pushed to try and justify the unjustifiable, they end up digging their heels in. So like a lot of times... they can't admit they're wrong it becomes a pride issue then it eventually breaks them and that can be generational too so that can that can be something like the

the flawed framework of trying to establish knowledge on the wrong foundations through induction alone or through deduction alone, like rationalism or empiricism. And then you get the inevitable result of postmodernism. just everything goes like you can't really know truth it's just about it's just about who has the biggest guns yeah exactly Or who decides that you shouldn't have guns at all. And so it's, yeah. But that's exactly right. It just ends up being, it's all relativism and subjective.

But what's fascinating in this discourse that I think is so important for people to understand is how easily this can occur without it having to be witting. So you could argue that maybe he's a sophist and he's intentionally kind of obfuscating, but you could also make the case that he really thought that he understood the essence of piety.

that he really thought he knew. And it wasn't until his presuppositions were called into question that he realized he didn't have a foundation because he didn't have a universal with which to examine the particular. Yeah, I'd go and say that... really for Universal.

to work and cohere they also have to be grounded in a single reference point so back to what you were saying with like truth truth is absolute and everyone knows that i'd say it's because truth is also an attribute of god since christ is called the eternal logos. Right. Yeah, and, well, yeah, that's actually, I got some.

I got some Bible verses written down that get into this and this would get into the charts that I sent you. So if you're ready, I can start going over that if you want. Sure. Do we have the chart? Where did we send that? That's what I emailed you. Okay. I don't know. But as you're looking for it, I can go ahead and read those Bible verses because I'd argue that way.

scripture doesn't lay it out like a logic textbook it doesn't it doesn't lay it out like a philosophy book but you end up finding all this in scripture and if you rightly interpret it and then arrange it according to whatever whatever kind of issues the age come up you can you can end up forming it into the most philosophically robust system it is where you do have a solid foundation to stand on and adjust by universals. So yeah, this is actually relevant to the charts that I drew.

on how all the universals could cohere in one because that's actually how you end up accounting for the problem of the one and the many and also I'd say end up accounting for how our grammar and language can mirror reality too so the kind of revelational idealism the worldview i advocate for for accounting for knowledge you have the mind of god the logos and the logos as Greek for what Jesus is called in John 1.

at the top, and I'm just going to read some of these scriptures which show the reason for the chart that I made, and I'll also go on to explain the terms that I use. in the beginning was the word and now be logos and the logos was with god and the logos was god

The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. And in him, the life... was the light of men so what's interesting is this logos or this mind of god is actually himself god right that proves a trinity but also distinct from God as a separate person. That's because for an infinite, perfect and omniscient being to have perfect knowledge of himself in accordance with the sum of his attributes and all of their perfection.

that perfect knowledge and its perfection would actually be a perfect duplicate of all the attributes of God, including personhood and consciousness. So Christ the Logos is a separate consciousness from God the Father as a person, but as one with him as a perfect contemplation of his own infinite perfections. Christ has hence called the logos.

which is also the root word for logic because he is the rational ordering principle which holds together all things that is within their proper distinctions and limitations. So this is from Colossians. So Paul says, giving thanks to the Father, which hath made us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in life.

who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son, in whom we have redemption for his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. This is where it's relevant. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature? For by him are all things created that are in heaven and that are on the earth. visible and invisible, rather they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.

All things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things. And all things in him consist. There you go. All the particulars. All the particulars are held together in the universal categories within Christ, the logos. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have preeminence. So when you look at the chart, the one with revelation, idealism, the chart.

You see a list of predicates such as truth, justice, or abstract principles like logic that's because all these things which must be eternally true or existent have their effort their essence or reference point in the mind of god With God and the equation, so many of these errors from the Enlightenment and later postmodernism, which confound knowledge, go away and aren't difficult. For instance, the Enlightenment methods claim that they can Now...

a thing in itself or an essence of a thing. And that's what Kant ends up going after. So this is where you can go over to the rationalism and empiricism chart where it doesn't work and the mind can't go to the universals. So when it's proven for reasons that I get into later that these man-made systems can't actually account for that. These frauds will go on to say, oh, well, such knowledge must not exist and it must be impossible.

Emmanuel Kahn's main grift is he makes a goalpost for knowledge to be a netical one-to-one knowledge of a thing in itself. And that also gets into the kind of errors and causality that why Vance and the people we just were talking about were doing. And then David Hume goes after that. So by definition, one-to-one univocal knowledge can only exist in the mind of God. These enlightenment grifters will pretend like knowledge has to be univocal in order to account for everything.

at a microscopic level in order to be considered true knowledge. That's why David Hume says, oh, you can't tell me what the causal power in every instance is. You can't tell me what the moment of causation when the billiard ball, when the cue ball hits the eight ball. Oh, wow. We can't really know cause and effect and all right, time to get done with metaphysics and just move on. That's that David Hume right there. The common sense answer to this is that knowledge in any form.

for finite minds must be analogical and not univocal. Analogical language is one of the non-negotiables for any system of knowledge. There are multiple fundamentals for knowledge and analogical language is one of them where the idea is that. When we communicate, we don't communicate exact one-to-one exactness and we don't have the exact ideas in each other's mind, but we can still generally talk about the same thing and have the same conversation.

And good evidence for that is if people, if you ask people are using the same words, define the same words they use, they'll rarely ever define the words they use the same way, but they'll still agree with each other. So that's where it comes in. We can't know all there is to know about any one thing that would require omniscience, but we can know true things about things.

enough that we can all observe the same phenomenon and discuss them as if we know the same thing, despite the thing existing independently of our minds. I have some more Bible verses written down, but that's quite a lot. No, that's a lot. Just for the audience's sake, I do want to distinguish the Enlightenment is not like a monolith of thought.

I would argue that certainly I think most of the United States founding is actually much more inspired by the Scottish common sense realist version of the Enlightenment. which was led by, yeah. Well, that's why I'm specifying enlightenment grifters. Like, it's the kind of people you have problems with, people who play these kind of, like, games. And it's really verbal jujitsu. Mm-hmm.

Oh, you can't establish that on these arbitrary parameters that I just made up? Oh, time to move on. Start from a new foundation. Yeah. Exactly. And I think that they're using some of these enlightened thinkers who were not grounded in reality. as a justification to eradicate the entire founding of the United States, which is... Exactly. What the woke right you are writing about does is

They will conflate the errors of the British empiricists with Scottish common sense realism. And then they'll accuse American liberalism of being grounded in the... state-of-nature nonsense of British empiricists and they'll smash the categories like, oh, wow, we really went wrong with Americanism. Time to start over.

Exactly. That's exactly what I mean. Yeah, that's what Carl Benjamin's five errors of liberalism. It's like, in terms of the ideas he's criticizing, it's... it's actually a solid essay but it's like in the context it is and the kind of conflations that it makes without addressing like scottish common sense liberalism or realism while also liberalism you could say It ends up just being a bomb thrown in already messy discourse which just muddies the waters even more.

Yeah, well, they are attacking liberalism, but they're They're conflating. I mean, the Fabians usurped the term anyway. Liberalism is not, you know, doesn't mean leftism. The two are not synonymous with it. It was the Fabians who conflated that definition. But now they're trying to subvert actually classical liberalism. And it is this notion of liberalism, which is the entire foundation for...

you know, the American Constitution, which is what gives us the Bill of Rights. Our Declaration of Independence is what the Bill of Rights is founded upon. you know, core principles of liberalism, you wouldn't have that. And those are the rights that are codifying the concept that was stipulated in our Declaration of Independence that we were endowed by our creator with inalienable rights.

of those rights are, the rights of light, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And there is no other document in the world that has that enshrined. in it as a founding document for their country. So it's very unique, but I think it's a quite profound and a really important concept for the preservation of the free will of humanity.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's, it's, um, it gets, it gets really frustrating also because like you brought up the Fabians, I think that's, that's the, that's the reason why this crowd also just goes on to like call everything a Jewish conspiracy because, um, Once you start missing all those other components in history, you also lose sight of the kind of subversions and the kind of targets that the real bad guys behind the scenes are actually targeting.

like it's it's important to get all those facts right because if you don't you can you can start letting a bad historiography do the heavy lifting a philosophy for you. And then you have an idealized of an idea that a lot of these woke right people are promoting because they idealize the kind of lines they're repeating. They don't realize that it's just for Marxism.

Oh, yeah. So the end of my essay that I just put out is on, you know, how they draw from ethnocentrism and ethnonationalism and basically they're neo-Nazis. and how much they have in common. I went through that, actually, in this article. But I think that's a really important point. It's not just the... you know, not having the context of history or using an inaccurate historiography. But I think that they're really thinking that they're going to redefine it.

They think that that's the role, right, is to advance the historicity of man. So they need to redefine what's occurred and reinterpret and reanalyze. And that's essentially why they're... you know, utilizing the critical theorist playbook because they have to undermine everything so you can eradicate it, wipe it out, tasaraba, right?

It ends up being incrementalism. I almost fell on board with this back in 2022 because I remember... i remember i didn't really know about chatham house i didn't know about madishi i didn't know about these like other families i talk about now but i was like

Well, Rockefeller is pretty high up there Rothschild. Well, people are calling them Jews and, you know, they have a kind of similar phenotype. So it's like, I never completely, I never completely like went on board with the, it's the Jews thing, but it's like.

If you start noticing a lot of the kind of people that are put front and center, you can start accepting that narrative. Then it's like social media does a good job because they'll promote the people who talk about the Jews, but they do it in a way where they'll. They'll ban smaller accounts for doing that, but then they'll promote larger ones. So it has the smokescreen like they're the actual underdogs. so it's like hey like There's this stuff that's being hidden from us.

And we want to be on the winning side. We want to get these people trying to destroy the world out of here. So they end up... They end up hitching themselves to a wagon that has a package deal that they're not aware of, and that's how they slowly will get radicalized into this weird ethno-nationalist stuff also. Yep. That's exactly right. So in that graphic from my article, the second one, right after truth, that's the Greek word for logos.

And that was the concept prior to, obviously, the biblical concept of logos. But this is... The cool thing, it can mean word, it can mean truth, it can refer to quite a bit of different things. The Greek language. There's divine reason, cosmic order, and the underlying principles of the... Exactly. That's what Christ says. That's what I was getting at. Yeah. Yeah. So.

Interesting. Well, I think it's important for people to know that the Greek translation of logos is that that's what it means and how it comports. So, yeah. well i want to get back like tying tying universals to god's attribute and you know being able to justify universals because romans romans 1 18 and and onwards ends up playing this also like like i said like the bible doesn't directly spell it out like a philosophy book but

It still has all of it in there. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness, or you could say suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it to them, for the invisible things, universals, abstract categories, of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made.

so that there's your there's your matter participating in invisible realities that are either god's attributes or they're reflections of god's attributes Even his eternal power and divine glory or Godhead So that they are without excuse because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and foolish and their foolish heart was darkened. professing to be wise, they became fools.

So as we see in the book of Romans, God's invisible attributes, which would include universals or ideas in God's mind, are revealed through what has been made. God, by his own initiative, discloses true analogical knowledge by revelation, primarily as in verse, through sense perception, actually. That's why the emphasis and why we are accountable for knowledge of God is because he made himself known through what has been made. Those objects in this.

Part which communicates invisible eternal truths are the particulars. These are the objects which are discernible only through sense perception and then later from reflection and reason. The knowledge we derive from sense perception is contemplated and made intelligible through logic and through the reasoning process. which can categorize and discern invisible and eternal universal truths. that are independent of the mind. So it's a ghost sense perception.

then you have a reasoning process, which is part in the image of God. So there could be some outside spiritual forces, but it could also be internal. But truth ultimately starts with he who is truth himself, Jesus Christ, and makes it known through the revelation rather than sense perception, logic, or his... Revelation, yeah, his revelation.

So when I was getting the bad part of the enlightenment I'm talking about with the people who just say we need to start with reason or start with sense perception where they make one have priority over the other in a way that's inappropriate and doesn't account for revelation.

It ends up trashing this order so that this is more like going back to the chart i have which shows rationalism and empiricism so for the rationalism graphic i have truth starting with the mind where universals are discerned then from universals, the physical world can be deduced by like...

a string of deductions in the mind we can get that later if they can't but that's literally like that's not even a straw man it sounds stupid when i summarize it that's literally what these people believe like you can't make it up So then I have sense perception last because it becomes an afterthought in the rationalist method. You have to prove reason first. I think therefore I am. Improve God. Improve the mature universe. And that's where sense perception comes in.

The rationalist method, I'd argue, is incapable of piercing the line between invisible eternal truths at the top of that chart. and our own mind, which is at the bottom. So empiricism, just in summary, we're definitely not going to have time to get to John Locke today, but empiricism insists that knowledge of truth just starts with sense perception. but sense perception cannot account for innate ideas. In fact, the empiricists tried to trash innate ideas.

so their methodology can't pierce between universals and the network. It can only pierce the line through revelation when all three of those are accounted for in their own proper order.

so in other words either god's exists god exists and he comes first and foremost or your system is incoherent and can't support itself Many rationalists and empiricists claim to be able to prove God, but they have to borrow from revelation to do so, then pretend like they're just starting with their own arbitrarily chosen foundation.

What I advocate for is Christian-derived common-sense realism, and I'd say the Scottish system is the one I find most appealing so far, which is what Courtney Elson would advocate for. Yeah, I work. And what I really do love is that it is the... While it may derive from a Christian framework, it allows for, as long as there is a realist framework, it allows for the potential to have other. belief system. So it is derived from, I mean, Thomas Reed was a priest.

And he is one of the forerunners of the Scottish common sense realist thought. So it is derived from that, but really it's about the metaphysical groundwork more so than eradicating the notion of free will by forcing people to subscribe to the belief system. And I just want to, you know, just to highlight what you did a really beautiful job and it was very eloquent, but just to, you know, in really simple terms, essentially you've got so on one side.

the empiricists who are, you know, they're arguing that they're really grounded in, you know, very concrete materialistic. kind of a sensibility where they can know everything through the five senses, very simply put. And obviously, there are things that we just know we know. And we can't necessarily see them, hear them, taste them. Or if you have somebody who is...

you know, blind, deaf, and doesn't have good tactile sensation, and we can go on with the senses, but does that mean that they can't know things? Obviously not. That's obviously false. Right, exactly. So that's the one extreme. And then we have the other extreme where, you know, none of those things matter. And the physical domain is irrelevant.

uh all is the mind right this is says bring us to descartes right uh koji jo ergo sum i think therefore i am uh his famous uh mind body uh question the duality but this is where they think that everything can be derived from reason so we can that that is the the the gnostic sense of gnosis right that we just intuit We have this immense kind of intense feeling. Usually it's some sort of, they describe it as like a transcendent experience that would lead them there.

often induced by either drugs or significant trauma. And that is the only way they can really know. They can achieve gnosis and real truth. through this transcendent experience. And these are the two really polar extremes that when I laid them out to sound absurd, because it is absurd, we intuitively know that this is false.

there is some sort of an underlying universal that we can know that we, you know, I think that in some sense can't do get right that we do have a priori knowledge, but this is because there's universals that we can all subscribe to. There's not so much a priori in a Gnostic intuitive sense. It's a priori because there's absolute truth. Yeah, I agree. That's what I was saying about Scottish realism. Like, yeah, it's what makes it good.

It has a set of ideas which makes the idea that universals correspond to speech and that what we talk about and negotiate over is real so I'd say that's the pragmatic utility so in terms of having a functional society on classical liberal principles scottish realism is ideal for that purpose but what i was talking about with the whole spiel about how christianity can only account for it as more of like a whole

systematic philosophy, because I'd say that once you don't have the Trinity, for instance, you can't really account for a subject-object distinction. That's where the difference I was getting at. Like, it's not saying like...

oh yeah we can't we can't talk to non-believers and they are not capable of reason it's like no they they definitely aren't like even even empiricists like you said One of the reasons why people end up falling for empiricists or rationalists is because they're able to borrow from

what like so on the outside they'll say we're establishing this on sense perception we're establishing this on reason alone they don't do that they end up borrowing from the other thing so they end up but they're so clearly capable of reason it's just that what they're doing is they're not being consistent with what they're advertising and that's the problem and like yeah like and that that can still create cognitive dissonance that can lead to like actual mental illness over time too

I would agree with that for sure. And it's very misleading to those who are witnessing it, right? Because they're drawing upon things that they're not admitting to having in their toolkit. So therefore, those who are witnessing it, the bystanders, think that who don't see the other tools that are in their kit that they're drawing from are misled. They're thinking that it is a viable system.

Well, yeah, and also people are surprised because they're like, look, I got all this. I proved God and I proved the material universe and I can justify sense perception. I did that from just crawling in a dutch oven and using my mind alone. and then other people see that it's like that appeals to their pride also and that's why like

You had so many people that are well-read and knew about Aristotle, knew about Plato, knew about the classics, knew about the Scholastics, why they're like, well, all right, let's move on from that. We know better than these people. Yeah, yeah, that is true. It's very deceptive. Ultimately, yeah, I agree that the Scottish common sense realism is a great foundation for a classical liberal society.

And ultimately, I understand what you're saying about the Trinity and how that presents the case for us. I'm pulling that out for different reasons. We've got to enforce that kind of view at gunpoint. Definitely no state religion or anything like that. Yeah. Awesome. So from an intellectual perspective, I absolutely agree. I understand the case.

but I think it's really important not to complate the two because I do think people are capable of knowing reality and operating from a realist framework without subscribing to that worldview. And I think, yeah.

that that's where i think that's also where i think a lot of the presuppositionalists end up going a little bit too far also like i don't know how much you pay attention to the apologetic debates within like classicalists versus evidentialists versus presuppositionalists like There are presuppositionalists that have balance, but when I listen to some of those mates, a lot of it is just bullying. You can't account for it, but it's like,

A lot of times, they don't even let the other person they're talking to even express their own ideas or views either, so it can turn into a little bit of a bullying session. I haven't listened to too many, mostly because the bullying kind of loses me. It's obvious not just going on though. Yes, it's very obvious. And so it doesn't feel like an intellectually genuine debate. It just feels like... Yeah, a SmackDown session, which doesn't really appeal to me.

But yeah. It's like that you fifth-round dialogue on steroids. Yes, although I say there's merit in that, because that was done through the Socratic method, and I think so much was revealed through that process. That's not what we have today. I think so many of these debates are... They're... I was on the debate team, and when we did debate, it was very formal. You had two minutes to present your thesis, and then you had a lot of time for the rebuttal.

And you went back and forth. It was very structured. And then you had your closing argument. And then it was tallied up. But it wasn't just like people screaming at each other, throwing out ad hominems, and, you know, name-calling. And it wasn't where one person frames the argument.

So, you know, I often I find debates really uncomfortable because oftentimes the person who frames the argument is the winner just by default because you. That's what I was getting at. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Yeah. So, I mean, I often will just, like, exit a debate. I'm like, well, I reject the premise. So, like, I'm not going to argue those terms because I reject those terms.

And so that's really, and when you look at what Socrates was doing there, that's what he was trying to get to was the underlying premise. I feel like that's a very different kind of a discourse and much more productive. than what we have today. Not to say that the other guy, what is it, is the pro? wasn't a sophist. I do think he was, but you can see from that debate, he could have been an unwitting sophist. I don't know. I mean, I don't know if he was intrinsically.

you know, inherently misled or if he was actually a bad actor, like trying to misrepresent. I don't know that. But you could see how it's very possible for him to be sincere. And he didn't realize, you know, you don't know what you don't know. Well, and then he just ended up heel digging, yeah, like, well.

I'm about to get on to Descartes, but first I want to say this with regards to the kind of apologetics, debates I see. What makes it a little distasteful to me is... it'll be a mix of that socratic method but also the kind of uh framing that you are talking about so there's there's both like the person they're talking to can't justify certain things and is giving them giving them rope to hang them with but also It just comes across as...

disingenuous and a smackdown session when that's really not what's needed where it could be more it's not how geus engage people is what i'm getting at like jesus could smack down a lot of people he talked to a whole lot more than he did but he he only reserved that kind of treatment for certain circumstances but that's that's not what you get and like

a lot of these are apologetics type situations. And I just, I don't think it's productive because if you're, if you're doing it to have like a proverbial wrestling match and people are cheering for one side or the other. You know, it's essentially a grifter session. It's just about likes, clicks, and whatever. But if you're really trying to educate people or you're really trying to uncover truth,

then you have a discourse, and a discourse is very different than dialogue. Discourse is Socratic method, right? And discourse is where you can have, but there has to be... underlying respect and there has to be a shared telos of truth seeking. That has to be inherent in the discourse. Otherwise, it's just, you know, somebody, it ends up being bullying and somebody justifying, you know, things that they know to be false or just just or cognitive dissonance.

that that's what i get the way the way they do it and the way they do it now set with like framing it like if you come at me with any possible objections from your world maybe you're automatically wrong like that that's where

The presuppositional method doesn't always do this, by the way. There are people who use that method that are legitimate, but it's pretty much like they focus on the grid of propositions that have to be true, metalogic, and then go about... going through certain types of arguments to show why that's reasonable for this part of the system that's reasonable for this part of the system but

Where it can turn into a bullying session is the way they word it is it's instantly framed like if you disagree with it, it's wrong. So that tempts the person they're trying to teach to heel dig. so it's like it's like it's just it just completely lacks tact and It's almost provocative, like they're wording it in a way that will agitate them where they know they can have a public smackdown. That's my problem.

Yeah, and I just don't think it's productive. I mean, how does the audience learn from that? They're either kind of, if you're like me, you're just turned off by it, but this is why I don't typically watch. Or you're so hung up and cheering, like, right? You're rooting for your team as opposed to really listening to this. The conversation, like you're really listening to the point. Here's what they learn. They learn how to dominate conversations and be a cage stage bully.

Yeah. point taken right i know that because i've been like i've watched those kind of videos and i've gone through that in my early 20s and burn bridges doing that so i've been there done that done with it

Yeah, that makes two of us. Yeah, that's not really my cup of tea these days. So there's enough to get worked up about in this world. Yeah, that's not my cup of tea. So yes, let's do Descartes because Descartes is... I think so pivotal in sending us down the wrong path of history, the philosophical trajectory. So first, I'm just going to get into a little bit of a historiography. So with Descartes.

Just going to start with his educational background. So from the age of 10, Picard was right off the bat trained at a Jesuit, trained by Jesuits at a young age. And then he went off to college at Royal Henry Le Grand. which is a Jesuit college. I'm not one of these guys that will say, oh, if someone goes to a Jesuit school, that automatically means they're an agent. But when there's that going on, but there's a couple of other red flags, that's when it can become a little bit up.

Like eye raising, alright? So there's more flags there. So as much as you hear me criticize the Jesuit order, they did know the scholastic methodology. And I'm pro-scholastic methodology as well. And they often produce innovative science and philosophers. I mean, yeah, we're not negating that for sure. So early on, like they were very rigorous Aristotelians, which means like. Dakar should know about her.

so 16th and 17th century jesuits were especially seeped in the machinery of thomas aquinas now i know i know you don't like everything about him and i don't either but when it comes to kind of errors they can't made like thomas aquinas system right off the bat just completely refutes that So that's why many of the mistakes they can't make.

are such head-scratchers for me like he was very familiar with these classical methods and overall would like them but then it's like when i see his arguments it almost looks like he was aware of them, but also intentionally brushing them off and obfuscating them. I don't know. Do you agree with that? I would. I think he had handlers. Based on what I've read of him, it looks like intentional obfuscation. And it does look like he's being steered.

That's the impression that I always get from Descartes. I mean, just even his whole mind-body dualism, it's like this, it just feels like sophistry. No, you're right. It's worse than that. He will word the dualism in ways that can appeal to a classicalist also. It's not just that. It's like he, cause it's like, it's like...

Oh wait, I want to be charitable and I don't want to accuse him of doing this, but then wait a second, he goes off over here. It's like, maybe he's doing that on accident, but the more and more it all piles up, it's like, wait, this is designed to not work. I think it was designed not to work, but I think it was also designed to subvert. I really think he was like a turning point in philosophy. And he legitimized this idealist framework that we see all throughout continental philosophy.

And I think he was really the one to give credence to this whole hermetic principle of mentalism that's now so pervasive. you know, the secret and all this kind of like pop philosophy. school of thought. And we're seeing, I'm really, I think it's the underpinning of the UN, you know, and I think there's a strong case to be made there. I think I've laid that out pretty clearly.

for people so they can watch the copious hours I've done on that. But I really think that Descartes, not to say that they weren't doing that before Descartes, but I think he was instrumental in laying that groundwork that negates the uh the material realm. And it's really, you know, this goes back to this battle between the empiricists and the rationalists, right? Because you're...

One is really grounded in materialism, but without any kind of, there's nothing underlying the material world. It's just sheer. materialism and then the other is all in the esoteric realm of the mind and the things that are intangible. And I think, though, that Descartes was really instrumental in negating the materialistic framework. uh undermining it so that you know it has no value and but he did it in a way that appeared it had the it had the

It had the feeling, the essence of being done through scientific method and scientific rigor. So it lent credibility to it. Well, this actually gets into some of the backdrop of some of the people who are influencing Descartes also, so I did bring up that he would have been training the Scholastic Method, but also, you know who Michelle DeMontane is, right? Mm-hmm. Yep.

And that was actually an influence also. So he has a work. What do I know? And, you know, this is going on with the first waiver. Okay, so Protestant Reformation happened. You had religious wars in the 1500s. It wasn't as bad as the 30 years war, but... Montaigne, he's doubting everything. So this is where I think Descartes gets his whole thing from. Descartes frames it like, I'm just taking a wrecking ball to hold foundation because it's just not working right now.

Montaigne was doing the same thing, but he ended up pretty much in the same place as David Hume like 100 years before him. He advocated for removing the... any kind of like authority from the equation faith like not just not just arbitrary like fallacious appeal to authority but remove remove authority itself from the equation And once you do that, you split the difference with yourself as the reference point. So reason went from a lens curved outwards meant to discern and to know.

external reality independent of the mind to a lens that just mirrors the mind and that that like even even though montane would have been more of an atomist atheist type guy at the end of his journey, it ends up having the same result as that so-called esoteric mentalism. It's interesting how all these paths lead there.

So the rest of the Enlightenment can be seized as a series of conundrums, not all the Enlightenment. I mean, from like these people who are talking about a bunch of conundrums and failed thought experiments attempting to tackle this issue. So how can we have objective knowledge starting from scratch without making reference to religious or metaphysical structures? that you have to learn by some kind of deference to authority.

So how can we establish an undoubtable basis for truth that I can figure out myself on my own? and it ends up being an inward turn to subjectivism and it ends up appealing to Groundless skepticism of obvious realities, like even going as far as like doubting sense perception and things that should be obvious like that.

i say i start with montane but then they call like montane didn't really have Renaissance skepticism and humanism, which ultimately is really the, you know, it's the Gnostic inversion where they had to turn inward and make themselves God. because they didn't have an absolute got it, you know. So they turned inward and decided that essentially they make themselves the creator. And this is the whole premise of I think therefore I am, I think therefore I create.

You know, and everything follows from that. And this is where you get also that eighth hermetic principle of care, where, you know, which is like where energy goes. Like where, or where interests go. I have something that energy goes, like everything flows. It's basically like wherever you put your attention to. So they, they call it care. So why do you think they cart stuck? That is a great question. I don't know. I haven't read Montaigne in a very long time, so I'm not as familiar.

Yeah. What are your thoughts on that? I actually think it goes back to the peace of Augsburg in 1555. All right, so that goes back to... Charles V, who was Luther's contemporary. This ends up leading to the Thirty Years' War. All right, so he struck a deal with the secular authorities regarding political controversies surrounding the Protestant Reformation. So this is from political reasons and secular reasons as opposed to any religious doctrinal conviction. On their part, they divided Europe.

in terms of what expressions of religious conscience you are allowed. So if you lived in an area where the prince was Lutheran, you can be Lutheran. If you live in a place where your prince is Catholic, You're Catholic too, so this is where I think the challenge of authority can come. Completely antithetical to the notion of free will, right? Exactly, yes. uphold some sort of a belief system, yeah.

well also that that goes back that goes back to this whole thing like because because no no it's like there's narrative weaving coming out of this leading up to the car also like this is what i'm saying leads up to the car because remember the narrative being rovin that he If I were to be charitable, it's the narrative he would have been taught or been hearing, but I'd say he was actually one of the people helping weave it because he was an agent. But the narrative is that...

Well, like, it's religious tyrants that ended up causing it when, like, this authority was made by secular authorities. It looks like they were deliberately trying to divide the public and create chaos and eventually... inject nihilism and atheism into society as i i'd argue it was jesuit coordinated counter-reformation I wouldn't doubt that. I can't say that I have enough information to prove it, but I think that sounds right.

Yeah, it definitely seems like a lot of it was choreographed, like maybe not everyone in those condoms were in on it, but you don't. You don't have to have everyone in on it for it to work like that. No, no. These people are masters of psychology too. Yeah, well, and if you're just happy, you have enough people believing it, then that's going to wield further interest. So, you know, you'll have other people along for the ride. I just wanted to read this.

He wrote that, this is Montaigne, he wrote, I am myself, the matter of my book. And in French, he says, it says, what do I know? Which is KSJ. I'm not KSJ. I'm not going to read it. I don't know how to pronounce it in French. Yeah, but this is essentially, that sounds exactly like a precursor to I think therefore I am. I am. Yes, yes, yes.

Yeah, Descartes was absolutely steeped in Montaigne. He has the classical education background, so he knows how to take a wrecking ball to it, but he's actually using Montaigne's skepticism as the wrecking ball. So this is interesting and it's said that his family was thought to have some degree of Marano, which is Spanish and Portuguese Jewish origins. That's interesting.

But they converted to Catholicism. They converted to Catholicism. There is a Spanish masonry connection. Spanish masonry, which we keep talking about. Well, yeah, that's what I was thinking. But then they converted to Catholicism, which sounds like potential Jesuit. Well, we're not.

the Jesuit order became the core of Spanish masonry like the Jesuit order became both the caboose and the front for Spanish masonry like both the background and like there's more things going on there oh yeah also you gotta remember the order of the golden fleece which is pretty much the spanish garter and just just a little side note since since i do research on these bloodlines

I'd argue the king of Spain, Felipe IV, is actually the head of the Order of the Guard in England and the head of the Order of the Golden Fleece. And I've actually seen evidence that the head of the Order of Malta is... taking orders from him also so king of spain is one of the most powerful people in the world but everyone people are either talking about king charles or like rothschild someone like that but hardly anyone's paying attention to king of spain

Interesting. Do you think they still have power today? Oh, more than ever, yeah. He's from Bourbon of Two Sicilies. Bourbon of Two Sicilies is off the pharmacy trunk that it's like far as far as he has all started doesn't really have relevance anymore but i'd actually say they're the core of the dynasty that created the jesuit order and are at the very top still and of their most powerful members as a king of spain interesting

I think the Spanish history is very interesting. They have this weird cultural paradox of being... This is going to sound because it's oxymoronic, but I don't know how to explain it. This is really just something I feel. I've been to Spain and, you know, just... It's kind of an essence, but it's this paradox of being very aggro is the word that comes to mind. They're very aggressive kind of culture and yet very submissive.

And that would kind of make sense if that's the history and that's the rule, right? And I don't know if it makes any sense. I feel like it's just something you feel when you're there. You need order followers, but you also need aggressive, militaristic population. But also, I'd argue Knights Templar and the Jesuit order, both of which are actually military orders.

Game in Spanish, because if you look at the locations for Templar, most people look at the names like, oh, that's Southern French, but... Hune Pans, for instance, I've made posts about this. He was initiated into Spanish Sufism. So there is a large Jewish element going on there. Like I make the case that Sephardic Jews can be pretty high up a power scale.

But they completely ignore the Arab Spanish Sufis in there and other other ethnicities. They paint this narrative that it's just Jewish Kabbalah. Right. And I argue that's what both Montaigne and Descartes themselves received in was Spanish Masonic. Not just Jewish, but Kabbalah, which has Jewish elements, but it's syncretic, so you're going to have a bunch of other bullcrap in there also. Yes, I would agree with that.

I think there's a lot of, I guess you can see the Pythagorean elements, but I think that's coming through the Kabbalah. Yes. So when I talk about this all coming from Spanish Masonry, I'm not saying Spanish Masonry is the first thing, but I think that's where the synthesis of all of the stuff came together that became like our power structures.

our power structures operating system is like what i was saying with q day pay and some yeah his his he was the person who initiated him into um Spanish Sufism was Tybalt, Tybalt de Payens, but that's a French last name, but he was a Moor, he was a, he was.

part black, part black, part Arab, Spanish more. So way more than just Jews going on in there. And even like there's other French conscriptions of Allah, like God being called Allah from that time period because the the sufic muslim aspect was pretty prominent and that's that's something that's not really talked about in a lot of uh contemporary histories but yeah like that's why if you look at pagani

Same last name as the car company. You look at their coat of arms, they have three black Moorish heads on it. It's because that's the root of their family in a lot of ways. Right, right. Fascinating. Yeah. I argue Knights Templar is the root of all these orders of chivalry at the top. And yeah, they came out of Spanish masonry too. That's where I think Descartes' philosophy came from, Montaigne. Also, German Teutonic Knights, German Teutonic Knights, they were from the Spanish Illuminati that...

Coincidentally, Loyola and the founding Jesuits were defending and in league with. So the Spanish population, they got tired of those games and kicked them out. But like when Habsburg, when Habsburg left Spain, went over to Germany and Austria and intermarried with Lorraine. These Spanish Illuminists went to the German Teutonic Knights, and they went on to found the Illuminati, and people like Kant were influenced by them. So I'd say all of this has roots in Spanish mainstream. You can find...

i'm assuming a highlight but so so many of these people we talk about have connections or overlap with spanish masonry Yeah, it does seem that way, and I've seen your threads on it. They do look like that's the tip of the spear, so to speak. Well, this is a bit of a detour, but I'm curious your thoughts on, I kind of see the two dialectical factions of the revived ancient mysteries.

uh, cults that, you know, like I feel like they're the left leaning ones and then the right leaning ones tend to be, uh, kind of explained as, uh, the, the left tend to operate on. You know, they're worshipping Divine Mother. They appeal to emotionality. They're weaponizing things like compassion, whereas the right tends to be, you know, the more patriarchal. patriarchal, authoritative, disciplinarian, militaristic.

And that seems to be aligned with these, like the Knights of Templar, the, you know, the Jesuit order, the Malta, these kind of militaristic orders. But then I'm curious who you think. is operating on the left side, or if you even think that that's an accurate kind of assessment. It depends on the time period. Remember, these are military orders, so whatever it takes.

and sweep away whatever institutions are in their way as they'll go like so back back in the cold war the jesuits were hardcore conservative anti-communists and pushed neoconservatism but then right right around the 40s 50s they were doing the anti-communist stuff but around them they were also pushing like anti-segregation and hey that's not I'm against segregation too but then

Going on in the 60s and 70s, they were behind some of this weird free love stuff. I posted the other day about how St. Louis, the second oldest Jesuit school in the country, how they they had Dylan Mulvaney speak there and that's like that's a Jesuit run school so it's like now now A lot of tri-Catholics complain about the Jesuits now because the Jesuits became more openly liberal and that's why as the Jesuits... Traditional Catholics have always distanced themselves from Jesuits and Masonry.

I mean, that's like in their, like when they go to church, they learn that. I've spoken to traditional Catholics and they will say it like Jesuits and Masons are not, you know, welcome. So that's not like a new thing. It's the infiltrated Catholic institutions that have syncretized, but traditionally that has never been. Accepted.

Well, it depends. I think it depends on how many conflicts they were having with the Franciscans and Dominicans also, because they wanted to brand themselves like pro Thomas Aquinas because they know a lot of the trads like that. And at times like that, where they were able to get away with that.

They have ran themselves as conservative before, and also around the times of McCarthy, they didn't have a reputation of being anti-communist, but around the 60s, that's when that started to change, I think. but yeah like jesuit order overall they're definitely more on the left and I've had people argue with me when I talk about them being behind the Illuminati and the French Revolution.

What are you talking about? The Jesuits are Catholics. Why would they push anti-clericalism? Adam Weishoff was trained. He was a professor at Ingolstadt. No, he, he, okay. He actually said, Adam Baisoff actually, sorry, Adam Baisoff actually even said that he modeled the Illuminati off of the Jesuit structure. That's why it's hierarchical. And it's part of why he used secrecy as a card. He said that that came from the Jesuits. He was vocal about that.

He literally was a Jesuit until 1773, and that's when the Jesuit order was suppressed. So, hey, I'm a Protestant now. You can't go after me. That's the only reason why he never stopped belonging to the hierarchy. But then it's like, oh, hey, how can you say that? Why would they support these anti-clericalists? Because 1773, that's when Pope Clement XIII.

suppressed them and tried getting rid of their order and that was a civil war between the jesuits and uh franciscans dominicans now a lot of people will say hey um all these orders are really in line like it's all dialectic theater it's like maybe at upper levels it's coordinated but i'm not convinced that like the middle management and even high level people who were killed in the french revolution were just all in on it and it was all theater like i'm

I'm not convinced of that whatsoever, so if you see it as More fair, it makes sense why a Catholic order would... push nihilism and atheism and i don't i'd argue even like because like i i was about to get the blaze pascal but i don't think we're gonna have time to do that today because like i gotta go to my birthday dinner maybe about 15 minutes But, no, like, so with Blaise Pascal, oh, yeah. So remember me talking about the protocols of Zion hoax?

so okay so for your listeners you don't know about the protocols of zion It actually lays out real conspiracies like, hey, we're going to use the medical institutions to commit genocide. We're going to start World War III. But it says we're going to enslave the Goy. and we're doing it for the elders of Zion. It's written like the actual New World Order agenda, but it's written from the perspective of, oh, we're Jews, we're going to do this.

So if you look at Stephen Drake, Stephen Drake, he has the Jesuit World Order account on Twitter, and he does some interviews with Eric Phelps, who did Vatican Assassins. he posted on archive.org and you can look up the um The protocols of Borg Montaigne. And if you just go on my Twitter and look up protocols, go to the video. If you see a video on my Twitter, you'll find it. Just type in protocols.

it's there so the huguenots with which blaze pascal belonged to were opponents the jesuits and they're they're um essentially publishing correct stories correctly framing the Jesuits role and power and philosophy and all this because they got right about that they were able to mock the Jesuits and completely ruin their reputation so they got kicked out of France so like at the time like people like Descartes and Hobbes and all these guys who are Many of them Jesuit educated or active.

this is at a time when jesuits kept getting kicked out of countries and came back into the back door i mean the jesuits got kicked out of france like seven times or something maybe even more like there's some countries where they got kicked out and went back in more than five times so

So from the perspective of, oh, like these guys are pro-Catholic, it doesn't make sense. But then once you realize this is a military order and they're going to wear whatever skin they need to, it makes more sense then. Yeah, for sure. So would you say then that there's no differentiation? It's really all the same groups that are, they just operate using whatever appeals they need to? So it's a dialectical spiral, but the thread is the same. They're just using different...

Yeah, you even see this with Opus Dei. There's documentation of Opus Dei supporting Franco and Opus Dei going against Franco even. Right. Oh, sure. Yeah. The dialectical theater is a... throughout all of them I think but I mean I was really referring to like these tactics of Because I think there are some cults where you see it's more geared towards this worship of Divine Mother, and then there's the other ones that are much more patriarchal.

Well, that goes into the whole Aryans versus Atlantean nonsense. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. Once you look into theosophy, though, the theosophy is like the Atlanteans and the Aryans, so it's like, even there you can see it's kind of the same thing. Yeah, yeah. I guess my question was really just, so are they, is it all being controlled really by the same people and they're just using different narratives when it behooves them?

Yeah, it's like they're yin and yang pantheists and dualists, both at the same time. So it's like they have their mother worship and they have their patriarchy worship. but so whatever whatever comes for the peons and enforcing the will and peons they'll they'll be into they'll be into um The patriarchy, Aryan crap

But we're seeing now, I feel like. I think we're seeing now, especially in this country. Between Obama and the Biden administration... and we had you had trump in between there but like the media the media and like the intelligentsia was was much more left-wing than they are right now under Trump 2.0. That was them wearing the devouring mother mask, and now they're going over to the mustache man patriarch mask.

Exactly. I would agree with that. I think that's accurate. I just wanted to point out, by the way, it was proven that the protocols, the Elder Design was like a intelligence operation. So anybody who wants to use that as, yeah. It went from multiple facelifts. It went from were the Huguenots plotting all this stuff to I don't know if you've heard of Simonian's letters, but that's so first up, first up, the protocols from the elders of Borg Montana, which was against the Huguenots.

That went through a facelift when it was circulated through the World Revolutionary Conference. That was like the Illuminati German Getonic Knights and Jesuits before they... became the Illuminati and Mayor Amschel Bauer, Mayor Bauer Rothschild. He was a Bauer Amschel Rothschild, by the way. That's the kind of Rothschild. Did the Bowers change their name to Rothschild?

yes yeah yeah yeah yeah bauer rothschild came off the bauer trunk or came off the hess trunk but and it's interesting that rothschild also started out as a treasurer for hess Yeah, so he was involved in that, but then... When it was at the early Illuminati stages, it became the Simonian letter hoax. So, like, this thing went through multiple facelifts and rat cons. Yeah, like, it was changing to the Simonian letters, and when the Simonian letters flopped, it became the...

Elders of the Protocol Society Yeah. They're really good at branding. I always say that if only we all had their marketing team, we'd be very successful. Well, I guess I know you don't have much time, but maybe you want to wrap up or at least... Yeah, where you want to leave off with Descartes, because Descartes is, I really do think he was pivotal to the trajectory of continental philosophy. I'm thinking maybe we can do this again and just pick off here, but I'm going to say...

I'm going to briefly summarize what he was doing, and the books to read for this are really short. They're really short, but it's the Discourse on Methods, the Meditations on Philosophy. and the discourse on philosophy then he's he's got four other books too that are short so this so remember what I was saying about like the 30 years war and the other religious wars the

There's a tension between authorities like Protestant versus Catholic and things like this. The intellectuals who embarked on the Enlightenment project in terms of the foundationalist methodologies. We're trying to start over from scratch with no appeals to tradition or authority or metaphysics. So you need to have an undoubtable axiomatic belief. But it has become new ground. So I'd actually say if they started with these four non-negotiables as foundations.

I don't know if you've heard of R.C. Sproul's for non-negotiables, like reliability of sense perception, analogical use of language, reliability of that. laws of logic, things like that. That'll be fine, but they don't appeal to that. So Descartes ends up saying, no, we have to throw that out too. And he takes a wrecking ball to all that tradition and the middle-aged scholasticism.

To start out from scratch, so his alleged approach was Pretty much I'm going to go lock myself in a Dutch oven to seal myself off from authority, tradition, and even sense perception. and he has this part part of his reasoning is he even says like what if what if my brain is just in a vat and there's an evil demon giving me illusions and just deceiving me. So he really gaslights his readers out of just taking their sense perception for granted.

I remember reading this like in college and just being like, what on earth am I reading? And why are they pushing him so hard? It really just felt like I was reading gibberish. Because there was so much gaslighting. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's getting people to like gas out of like basic, reliable, um, knowledge that are just like intuitive. Right. And then they can be proven, but one of the issues I have with which later comes enlightenment is, um,

Apologists end up framing it like, oh, well, this is reason. They take the way they can't define reason and says, well, now we need to protect religion from the probing lenses of reason, which... So most of these issues come from people not thinking through how these terms are being retconned and how they're being deceived and just reacting to it. That's where damage actually comes in. I'd argue that the kind of response people have does more damage than Descartes did.

So yeah, just back to what I was getting at earlier, so his unproven assumption for knowledge to be attainable was It must start from indoubtable axioms in the mind, not law of non-contradiction, not law of identity, not law of excluded middle. Those could actually potentially work. And those can actually prove other things.

in other words he was pretty much sealing himself off for revelation and that's why i was like she wanted to show those charts i made off first yeah i i then those are great i think that that illustrates it well so when you said it's discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy that's the book that you were I have this course on philosophy. Yeah, they're short 30 or 50 page books. Yeah, there's one translated by Donald Kress. Obviously, they're not written in English. So, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Great. I'll put links to those. All right. Well, I know you need to go. Happy birthday. Definitely. Do you have anything else you want to leave us with to close out and before we leave you? And then, of course, tell people where they can find you and all that stuff. Yeah, you can find me. I have a YouTube channel. I'm making a video on my YouTube. I'm working on it about...

The Medici family, how they actually ended up setting up the Rothschild banking family and how they're like big mob bosses and how the Jewish bankers that you see front and center are actually being taxed in money laundries, the likes of Medici, Savoy, SportsUp.

these italian families control so you know i'm challenging i'm challenging the kind of narratives that alt media puts out about the way power works and showing that yeah yeah i'm i'm almost done with that video i'll hopefully have it up hopefully have it up later this week so my youtube channel is just my name and also you can follow me on twitter mike b king one word one five one seven

What's funny is that was, that was my, the last five, the last four numbers, my phone number, but that ends up being the date for the reformation. Also 1517. So that works. Yeah, that's about all I have right now. Awesome. Well, thank you. And thank you for all this incredible research. I really appreciate it. And I am so glad that you are poking holes in the... mainstream alternative narratives because they are really subverting our culture. And I think they're doing great damage.

Yeah, well, if we do another conversation, we could get into actual all day car. Yeah, like Spinoza, like Benz, that Nicholas guy whose last name I keep botching. And also I want to get into Pascal's reaction sometime because I think like Pascal was brilliant. He actually had metaphysical groundwork, but it's. I think the way he reacted to Dakar actually ended up doing a little bit of damage. Negated value, yeah.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Absolutely. Well, I would love it. I would love to do a part two and Swinoza. So I went to a religious service and they were. talking about resilience, and they said, resilience doesn't mean what you think that it means. You know, they were basically explaining the UN definition of resilience, and they said it doesn't mean to overcome, it means becoming.

And then they said, and they started going through the people they need to thank. And they were like, we need to thank the Kabbalists. And we need to thank, they go through like all of these. you know, mystical philosopher. And then they end with, and mostly we want to thank Spinoza. I can't believe I'm listening to this. It was crazy. Spinoza, yeah, we can get in this later, but Spinoza is actually why I think that Cart was actually a catalyst and just couldn't come out in the open because...

Spinoza went through the exact same methodology that Carl laid out, but followed through it more consistently and got like the God of Kabbalism, essentially. Yes, I would agree with that. And Spinoza is who all of these, you know, like the cosmorotic humanists and those people. Even Bertrand Russell, the atheist, likes him. I know.

Yeah. Obviously, Bershwin Russell was like a communist. We know that. With his archives in China. But he was also an architect of scientific dictatorship, so there's that. Yeah. Well, I look forward to it. That'll be great. We'll unpack those and I'll outline it beforehand. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. And yeah, thank you. We'll post your links below. And happy birthday. And thank you all for watching and listening. All right. Have a good one.

This podcast is a part of the C-Suite Radio Network.