God, Aliens & the Secret Behind All World Religions Jason Jorjani

OUTLINE 

00:00 - Blackwater intelligence & MI6 
14:05 - Reverse engineered WWII UFO's 
24:47 - Defamation by NY Times 
39:37 - $1 billion Venezuelan oil contract 
55:54 - Planned coup in Iran 
01:11:59 - NDE Jorjani's near-death experience 
01:20:25 - Paranormal science 
01:31:54 - Lockheed Martin's underground space tech facility 
01:43:26 - Earth's timeline is being manipulated 
01:51:07 - Earths pole shift; cities under Antartica 
02:00:10 - Tic tac UFOs are Lockheed tech 
02:14:21 - 'Angel & demon' UFO narrative 
02:17:18 - Aliens engineering wars on earth 
02:35:34 - Underwater 'super-human' civilization 
02:41:41 - Mystery airship of 1896
02:52:07 - Alien disclosure is a farce 
02:54:24 - Chris Bledsoe case 
03:00:25 - Christianity VS the US constitution 
03:12:19 - Plato's roots in the modern world 
03:21:53 - Plato's noble lie 
03:36:02 - The rise of intellect in ancient Greece 
03:39:48 - Belief in GOD 
03:49:11 - Prometheus = Lucifer

Jason Giorgiani, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast, man. Appreciate it. Thank you for the invitation, Danny. It's a pleasure to be here. For people listening, can you give just a brief background on yourself and, your history and philosophy and everything that you've studied and written about?

Sure. So I'm a native New Yorker, and, I did my BA and my MA at New York University. And then I completed my doctorate in philosophy at the State University of New York, on Long Island. And then I spent a number of years teaching at, a bunch of different colleges in the New York and New Jersey area, Greater Gotham as I like to call it. And I taught philosophy, history of philosophy, ethics, comparative religion, political theory at one point, and also the history of Iran.

And in philosophy, often my focus was philosophy of science and technology and its relationship to society. So STS, Science, Technology, and Society. So it's a wide range of areas that I taught in. Mhmm. Before then, getting involved in some very unusual political machinations, which ultimately led to me being in the pages of The New York Times and Newsweek and so forth, which we can talk about.

Yeah. What was all that about? It seems like there were some sort of a campaign against you to to to is to smear you or discredit you that ended up on the front or not the front page, but in the New York Times Yeah. Inside of a bunch of different publications, and somehow the Mi 6 was involved in this? Yeah.

It's a long story, but I think, actually, it's an interesting one. So and we have time. So We do. I'll I'll, unpack it for you. So I had written this doctoral dissertation, Prometheus and Atlas, in 2012 and received my doctorate for it in 2013.

Then the book was expanded and published in 2016. Right? So my first book, Prometheus and Atlas, which, by the way, it won the book award of the Parapsychological Association in 20 16. Oh, wow. And this is relevant to the story I'm about to, unfold for you because right after that book came out, I, in a rather, I would say, meteoric fashion, became very well connected in the parapsychology community among, you know, very serious researchers, like people at the Society For Scientific Exploration, of which I became a member, and people at the Parapsychological Association.

A lot of the folks that you've interviewed, are connected to those same people. And, you know, we're talking like Russell Targ, who I got to meet there at one of the the PA conferences, and Hal Putoff, of course, is a prominent member of the Society For Scientific Exploration. So I became well connected in those circles, and Prometheus and Atlas was hailed in those circles as, you know, one of the most important or if not the most important parapsychological treatise for a long time, even though I was coming at, you know, parapsychological data from the standpoint of a philosopher who was interested in the deeper conceptual implications of these things. So point being, I'm very connected to these people. And in a way that I think is also gonna wind up being relevant, a lot of these same people wound up central to the UFO disclosure movement as it has now, you know, begun to unfold.

And this is the milieu in my life when in so my book is published in February, and then in about, I would say, May or June of 2016, this guy from London reaches out to me, and he says, I kid you not, he is the British, head the head of the British branch of the Vril Society. Now the Vril Society were supposedly these occultists who created the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the Nazi party. Okay? They were like these barons and aristocrats in Austria and Germany, actually mostly based originally in Austria. Remember Hitler was from Austria, not from Germany.

And Baron Sebattendorff and his associates created this occult circle that had these female mediums involved with it, Maria Orsich and others, and they claimed to be channeling messages from, you know, entities. Okay? And believe it or not, these people created the Nazi party as a pack, as a political action committee in order to fight the rise of communism in Germany. Remember, Marx was a German. Mhmm.

And even though the, you know, the Soviet Union became the first bastion of communism, communism was born in Germany, and there was already a very strong communist contingent in the Weimar Republic. And these, these aristocrats, occultists, were not interested in seeing communism seize political power in Germany. So they they created this political front, the Nazi party, and hired somebody like Hitler, who was a good orator, to basically defend their interests, defend the interests of the aristocracy. And so the occultism of of Nazism really, is is something that, is brought in from the ground up, okay, as these people are setting up this society. So, anyway, that's to give you a background.

What's the Vril society? And this guy reaches out to me So the Vril Society is basically like a modern spin off of what was happening? No. No. No.

I mean, that's what they called it back then. That's what they called it back then. So it's still active still alive today. Some people say it was called the Thule Gesellschaft, the Thule Society. Thule is the Germanic concept for Atlantis, the Germanic equivalent of Atlantis.

So some people say it was called Thule Gesellschaft or Atlantis Society, and that it was organ organized around the idea of Rill. And some people say that the Thule Society spun off into the Vril Society. In any case, it was this thing back then. And this guy contacts me, and he says I'm the head of the British branch of the Vril Society. Mhmm.

Now to put that in context for you, there were a lot of people at a high level in the British parliament, in the House of Lords and so forth, even in the early 19 forties, who wanted to make not just a detente with Hitler, but an alliance with the Nazis. And, actually, you know, Hitler made, like, 3 piece offers to these people to try to solicit the British Empire to come into some kind of strategic alliance with him. Mhmm. So point being that there would be a British branch of the Vril society is not completely bizarre. It's conceivable.

But it strained credulity for me somewhat that in whatever 2016, some guy is calling me or writing me and and saying this. Anyway, I dismissed the guy. He sounded like a nutcase, and I had come out with this book, which, although it's a very serious philosophical text, Prometheus and Atlas, goes into all kinds of paranormal phenomena and, in the last chapter, also engaged with UFO phenomenon. And I had been getting kind of crank emails from a lot of people. So I dismissed the guy.

Then I got involved at the same time with a very high level, Iranian opposition group. So I'm, Persian by paternal descent. And for a long time, since at least, I would say at least in a serious way since 2009, when there was that green uprising in Iran. At least since 2009, I had been involved in a serious way in the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic to try to, you know, remove this regime from power and to to develop a form of government that would reflect the will of the Iranian people. So I get involved with this very high level, sociopolitical group devoted to a cultural and political revolution in Iran, not just regime change, but a cultural revolution in Iran.

And then once I'm involved with them, this guy contacts me again. And he says to me, we have a broadcast facility in Croatia where we can bombard the Islamic Republic with whatever anti regime propaganda you wanna tailor for this purpose. And there's a guy in Washington, Michael Bagley, who runs a private intelligence agency called Jellyfish. And they're the ones managing this dish in Croatia, which can bombard, you know, the Islamic Republic with whatever kind of message you wanna get into the country. And I said, alright.

Look. Let me just Google this character. Right? And I Googled him, and there was a story from Mother Jones and a story that had been run-in Wired about Jellyfish, which was presenting the organization as the salvaged intelligence directorate of Blackwater. You remember what Blackwater was?

Eric Prince. Right? Yep. Okay. So what happened was Blackwater fell apart, and Eric Prince was he let's see.

He became increasingly dissatisfied with the kinds of people that were around him and the kinds of people that he had to deal with within the US deep state and the intelligence community. I think he came to feel that his efforts to bring security to Iraq were being undermined by people in the broader intelligence community. And so he sort of left, what had been Blackwater and the organization disintegrated. That was, of course, a mercenary organization. Right.

But it had an in house intelligence service. And Jellyfish was a rebranded form of Blackwater's intelligence service, its in house intelligence. And Michael had worked as Erik Prince's, like, intelligence director, this guy Michael Bagley. Okay. So this creepy, crazy guy in London tells me call Michael Bagley, and he will be able to help you with these regime change efforts in Iran.

So I said, fine. With one phone call, I'll figure out whether this guy is a crank or whether there's something to this. And I called, and the guy was expecting my call. We had a nice conversation. Was?

Yeah. And we had a couple meetings over the course of a few months. We had a lot of correspondence and a couple of meetings in person. And so so, basically, this guy in London, Jonathan, got me involved with the former intelligence director to Blackwater through my interest in bringing about regime change in Iran because he failed with this whole bizarre Vril society angle. Right?

Right. But then over the course of my much more tangible involvement with, Michael and Jellyfish in terms of Iran regime change, he brought back he brought this weird stuff back into the conversation. The Nazi stuff? Weird stuff related to that. Like, for example, we we had been discussing this privately, my interaction with Jacques Vallee.

So at one point, Jonathan tells me that and, by the way, let let me just preface this. This is kind of out of the order of the story, but it's worth mentioning upfront so that people get more of a sense of who it was I was dealing with. When this whole fiasco wound up ending with my defamation in the pages of the New York Times and Newsweek and stories on NBC and so forth, I dug into who this character was, this Londoner. Jonathan. Yeah.

And this guy has been initiated into more than a handful of the top secret societies in the world. He was like a 32nd or 33rd degree Mason. He belonged to, all kinds of, you know, like, Rosicrucian, Golden Dawn orders, and all over the world, from Argentina to various countries in Europe. What? Also, look, I was working to try to bring about regime change in Iran.

Right? Right. So I had a little bit of involvement with people in Mossad as well. And Oh, really? Yeah.

And for the record for the record, I've never taken a single shekel from the state of Israel. By the way, they offered me money, and I was so insulted that at that point, I cut off communication with them. But in any case, I did work closely with about 4 different people in Mossad. How did you get connected with them? It was part of the, let's say, lobbying efforts we were carrying out for the sake of change of regime in Iran Okay.

During the Trump administration, which if you can remember at that time, he had well, Mike Pence had since 2009 in in the Congress, Mike Pence had been a very outspoken advocate for regime change in Iran. And then at that time, John Bolton was also, if you remember, in the administration, and he's been an Iran regime change hawk. So, anyway, we were we were carrying out some serious lobbying in Washington. I went to the Capitol and had some meetings, including with one of the members of the National Security Council at at one point. And, anyway, in that context, as you can imagine, I also engage with people representing the state of Israel because there's no country in the world that has more of a vested interest in seeing the regime change in Iran than Israel does for a very good reason.

But my point is this, one of these characters in Mossad had worked with Jonathan before and knew knew him quite well. And in the course of conversation, he inadvertently revealed to me that Jonathan was a well placed, Mi 6 operative, which I had not been aware of. I thought he's just, like, some Britisher who knows the head of, Blackwater Intelligence. But then I find out and I found this out very late in my involvement with him. And had I known this up front, I would not have been dealing with him.

But, anyway, point being, so Guy's initiated into all these secret societies. He's also an Mi 6 operative. Okay? And he's doing things like writing letters saying he's the head of the British branches of the Royal Society. Okay.

So this guy Report. So this guy at one point, he introduces me to a former NASA JPL engineer who has supposedly schematics for a retrofitted reverse engineered version of the Nazi bell. K? There was this thing called Die Glocke. 

Back in 1943, 44 in Prague, the SS had set up a think tank under the direction of general Hans Kammler, and they brought in a bunch of aeronautical engineers, including from Italy. And we we can get into this if we wanna you know, once we get into the disclosure conversation Mhmm. David Grush has talked about how there was this crash in 1933 in Magenta, Italy. Right.

Right. And Mussolini brought the Germans in right away. Okay? So this explains why this this guy, Belluzzo, was involved on the engineering team and why they put the project not in Germany, but in a third party country, namely, you know, Czechoslovakia. Okay.

Right? So so because it was a joint Italian German operation, they picked a third country to do it in. And they had this think tank, and they built something which basically was a it was a power plant shaped like an acorn or a bell. Okay. And inside this thing were two counter rotating cylinders, one filled with mercury and one filled with Thorium, which are both radioactive isotopes.

Mhmm. And apparently, when this contraption, which is spinning the mercury and thorium in opposite directions at a very high velocity, when this is pulsed the right way with a combination of AC and DC power, it causes the plasma to undergo a a state change. It causes the the mercury and thorium isotopes to undergo a state change and to interact with each other in a way that opens up a controlled vortex. So just the way that, like, you can take, you know, uranium or plutonium. Right?

And under the care very carefully calibrated extremely precise explosive force, you can get that that material, the yellowcake uranium, to enter into a state of fusion, nuclear fusion. The mercury and the thorium isotopes inside this Bell device will undergo a state change, which then puts out more energy than you're putting into the system. Okay. Right? So, like, with nuclear, technology Yeah.

You can either create an uncontrolled, an uncontrolled fission reaction, or you can control the nuclear reaction to have a power plant that you get, like, calibrated energy from out of. Mhmm. And this bell was like that. It was something that could generate power and be a source, basically, of free energy in the sense that you're getting more energy out of it than you're putting into it. Okay.

Real quick. What year is this again? 43 to 44. No. No.

No. When the what year is this when the guy the m I six guy or, the guy from Jellyfish introduced you to the guy from JPL? It was spring of 2017, if I'm not mistaken. The spring of 2017. Yeah.

So and who was the one who introduced you to the JPL guy? Was it the jellyfish guy or was it the No. It was the guy in London. M I 6 guy. Yeah.

Mi 6 guy. So why is this m I 6 operative introducing somebody who's trying to lobby for an Iranian regime change to somebody working on some ancient Nazi science. Remember, the guy introduced himself to me as the head of the British branch of the Vril Society, and I completely dismissed him. So what I think is that when he saw me clearly, I was under surveillance by these people. And when he saw me involved with Iran regime change Mhmm.

And saw that I was willing to basically risk my life for the sake of that project, which I was, by the way, and we can get into that too. You know? The crazy lengths I went to to try to facilitate regime change in Iran. He saw that it's something that I cared about so much that he could use it to manipulate me. So it wasn't about the Iran stuff.

That was just the way, I think, to get a hook into me, to try to engage him on other things, which had more to do with UFOs and parapsychology and UFOs. Okay. That's my guess of what his MO was. So he introduces me to this JPL guy who's got these schematics that claim to be an updating of this Bell technology to our time. Right?

So you imagine 19 forties, we had computers of the size of walls. Right? Giant transistors. If you're gonna build something like the Bell today, it doesn't need to be that size, whatever that thing was, 9 to 12 feet tall. You could probably put it, as they claimed, in a cylinder like this size.

And this guy had these schematics, of basically this mercury Thorium reactor, which was in this kind of cylindrical form. Mhmm. And they had clusters of them that were connected to each other, that would collectively produce power. And each of them would fit inside an encased module. And you could put these modules together, like, each one was like a slice in a pizza pie, and you could build this larger Okay.

Larger, power plant. And the idea with that is that you could scale it up as much as you wanted. You could use this thing to power a car, or you could use it to power an aircraft carrier, depending on how many modules you connected to each other. And he sends me okay. So I had had dinner with Jacques Vallee at his home.

When was it? And I think I think it was late 2016 or very early 2017. And, it was about my book Prometheus and Atlas because he had read Prometheus and Atlas shortly after it came out. And, of course, I discussed his work in that book. You know?

His, passport to Magonia, Invisible College were significant influences on my philosophical analysis of the UFO phenomenon. And it was reflected in the text of Prometheus and Atlas. And I think also that there were some novel ideas I had in that book about the archetype of Prometheus and how it expresses the essence of technological science as a force in world history. And how I developed that idea in the context of the philosophical work of, say, Martin Heidegger, which Jacques was very interested in. And so he invited me to his home.

We had a very nice dinner together, and there had there was one picture of us that I had, I suppose, made the mistake of posting in social media. And this guy, Jonathan, saw that photo. So he became aware of the fact that I was involved with Jacques Vallee and had some kind of access to him. So then, I guess, late spring 2017 or early summer, he sends me with this NASA JPL guide to Jacques in San Francisco. And I set up a meeting in the Fairmont Hotel, actually, on the top of Nob Hill.

Mhmm. And this guy presents these schematics to Valle. And he he does this in the guise of Valle as a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, saying to him, basically, look, this is we have this blueprint, I guess you'd call it. Blueprint. Mhmm.

And, we're working on a prototype, and we wanna try to find venture capital for this. And long story short, I was supposed to meet with Jacques again to get his personal assessment of what this what this guy was about because, frankly, at this point, I didn't trust any of these people. Right. And I was starting to think that maybe I am being played by some kind of, you know, master manipulators of the type that Vallee discusses at length in his book, Messengers of Deception. He wrote this whole book in the late seventies about intelligence agencies and basically criminal syndicates who use the UFO phenomenon and other bizarre happenings in order to manipulate people through a kind of elaborate smoke and mirrors game.

And I actually wanted his opinion on whether he thought that these were the kinds of people that I was dealing with. Mhmm. In which case, I was really thinking at that point to cut them off. But, anyway, he had some kind of personal surgery and personal issues that prevented me from regrouping with him after this meeting with the NASA engineer, the former NASA JPL engineer. Right.

So I never got to get his assessment. And then I think it was within a month later that I was defamed in the New York Times. And frankly, I don't blame Valle for not wanting to communicate with me after that. He has a very significant reputation to maintain, and here I am being accused of all kinds of nonsense. So how did you get defamed?

How did that happen? So okay. So I'll I'll lead with that, and then I'll come wrap back around to tell you another relevant story with regard to this Londoner. Okay. In, I think it was, June of 2017, I sat down with this young man in a bar, in the shadow of the Empire State Building, who purported to be a a right wing youth from Sweden who was who had been on assignment in Britain studying, like, I don't know, like Viking pagan groups for some thesis he was writing about freedom of, the suppression of freedom of expression in academia.

So he claimed to be writing this thesis about how free speech is being suppressed in academia. Okay. And that his main subject of research were right wing groups in Europe. And he had been in Britain, and these guys at the London Forum had, basically written to me and begged me to meet with this guy when he visited New York. Now the London Forum is a kind of right leaning think tank in London, where I had been invited in February of 2017 to come give a talk on Heidegger and philosophy of technology, right, and to promote my book, Prometheus and Atlas.

Now now guess who set up that talk for me at the London Forum in February of 27th? Jonathan. Yes, Jonathan. Yes. Dear.

And interestingly enough Dear god. Interestingly enough, when I went to speak at the London Forum by the way, there were police helicopters around the building. There was a police cordon around the building. We're talking about Britain earlier off record. Right?

I mean, I have never seen a police presence like this in my life. For some 25, 30 right wing people, collected into a room presenting intellectual papers. There was such an Antifa presence marshaled outside this conference hotel that they cordoned the whole place off, not just with cops on the ground, but with police helicopters. There were literally chopper noises in the background of my talk on Heidegger's philosophy of technology. So but here's the thing.

Jonathan, who invited me to this talk, never showed. He didn't come to the conference himself. And, anyway, I am not gonna go into the details there, but point being, it was very suspicious. Mhmm. And then and then it's these London Forum guys who contact me, and they say, look.

This young kid's coming, and he's doing this dissertation thing. And, you know, we want you to help him out. He wants to interview you and get your perspective on this subject, suppression of freedom of speech in academia. So I sit down with this guy in this pub and little do I know he's wired under his clothes. Okay?

He's wired with a camera and microphone under his clothes. Is this it? Yeah. And so he films he films 2 hours of footage of me. 2 hours.

And of this 2 hours of footage, 2 minutes of it wind up in the New York Times. Right? So imagine that. The guy records me for 2 hours, and the 2 hours of audio is spliced down to 2 minutes with sentences and half sentences of mine stitched together to make it sound like I said things that I didn't. What did it what did they try to make you say?

So I'll give you an example. At one point, I talk about how I think that if the current migration policies continue remember, this was 20 17. 17. So starting in 2014, 2015, we had seen Angela Merkel in Germany allowing these millions of migrants to come in through Turkey, from Syria, right, and so forth. Yeah.

Europe was being overrun by migrants both from the Middle East and from North Africa. Okay. And there were women in all across Germany. There were there were horrendous social problems that were ensuing as a result of this. Okay.

And so I said in that, interview, look. If these policies continue like this, we're gonna see a horrendous backlash, a right wing reaction. And by 2050, you're gonna have Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler on European currency, which is a rather rather, you know, melodramatic, you know, statement. Right? But it's making a point that if this kind of policy continues for another 20, 30 years Right.

There's gonna be a very extreme right wing reaction. Reaction. Yeah. So at one point, I say that. At another completely different juncture in the conversation, we're discussing a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

And I say to him in that context that we, meaning the West allied with India, could win that war at the cost of a few 100,000,000 people. Now you have to understand, India is a country with a population of, what, like, 1,200,000,000, something like that. Right. Pakistan's got, like, I don't know, a couple of 100,000,000 people. Right?

So I'm talking about a potential nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent might be won by India at the cost of a few 100000000 people. So he takes that passage at the cost of a few 100000000 people and the Hitler Alexander Napoleon Hitler thing and splices them together like I'm advocating for the return of Nazism and calling for the extermination of 100 of millions of people like in Europe and the West. To give you one example of the horrendous distortions. So predictions were turned into prescriptions and completely unrelated statements were stitched to one another. And 2 hours of audio cut down to about 2 and a half minutes and put right there in the New York Times and then carried by Newsweek and a lot of other mainstream media.

And what was the purpose of this? What was what acts did they have to grind? What did they gain by doing this to you? So I had been involved, not involved. I I was a formative member of, what we called the alt right corporation.

In in 2016, the alt right you know, as Trump was running for office. Right? The alt right was this completely amorphous shit show of various political tendencies from libertarians to fascists, frankly, to, I don't know, Christian evangelical type groups. There was no cohesive and coherent overarching ideology. The only thing that, you know, bound the so called alternative right together was its opposition to, basically, you know, typical entrenched conservatism.

Right? Like the Republican party in United States. Big business, typical conservatism. The only thing that bound all these groups together was that. And the way I got involved with this is that, basically, I had been looking at this political landscape and forecasting that we were going to have the rise of a very regressive, traditionalist, white identity politics.

And I wanted to try to make sure that the alt right did not go in that direction. At the same time, I was working, as I said, with the Iranian opposition. And this is gonna be a difficult one for you to wrap your mind around and maybe also some of your listeners because people are very unfamiliar with the sociopolitics of Iran. But Right. Iran means Aryan.

And so, Iran is, like, definitionally speaking, the Aryan nation. The name of the country means that. It's the cradle and homeland of the Aryans. And so the discourse that's rising up today against Islamic fundamentalism in Iran is an Aryan discourse. It's a discourse for the revival of the pre Islamic identity of the Persian people and of other Iranians.

But what Aryan means in Iran is completely different from what it meant in, I don't know, 19 forties Europe or 19 thirties Europe. Right? So What did it what did it mean? Well, I mean, the term technically just means noble. Noble.

Noble. And it's a self descriptor that the people in in in that land applied to themselves. Right? So The land of the Aryans. Yeah.

Land of the Aryans. So so look, here's the thing. Iran, traditionally, throughout history, has been the most cosmopolitan country on earth. It's a civilization that emerged from out of the synthesis of all kinds of different people. Some of them ethnically related, like the Persians and the Scythians and the Medes who are all Aryans or Iranians, but many others, you know not ethnically related like the Babylonians the Assyrians the Lydians.

Iran at its very foundation was a very sort of multi ethnic cosmopolitan entity, and it became even more so throughout the course of history. Because if you look at where Iran is placed geographically, it's right at the crossroads of the world. It's between India, China, Eurasia Right. And, the Middle East and North Africa. So it is the crossroads of the world.

And throughout the course of history, it served as a single greatest conduit for the cross pollinization of various civilizations. Right? It's how Europe influenced India and how Indian influences streamed back into Europe. It had a fundamental impact on Chinese civilization. And then when the Mongols came in and conquered Iran, Asian civilization also impacted Iranian identity.

So it's like this global melting pot. It's the closest thing to a civilizational melting pot that you had before the United States arose. And there are a lot of structural similarities. Actually, Jefferson was deeply influenced by, ancient Iranian political thought when he came up with the constitution of the United States because he was reading Greeks like Xenophon and Herodotus Right. Who wrote about the structure of the Persian Yeah.

Imperial system. Amin was telling me about this. Yeah. Which was a federal system. Mhmm.

Anyway, and they all had tremendous reverence for Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, the father of Iran, as this great humanitarian, cosmopolitan, humanistic statesman. Right? So I have this whole Persian heritage and I'm involved in this Iranian opposition movement, which is reclaiming Aryan identity but in this cosmopolitan sense. Right. And so I have this vision that if I can take what was then called the European New Right, nouvelle droite in Europe, and my books, you know, are published by the leading press, Arctos, the leading press of the European New Right, which by the way also publishes Alexander Dugan.

And I I thought to myself, if I can take the European New Right and this shit show that's the emerging American alt right, and I confuse it somehow with the Aryan renaissance in Iran, then I can shift the trajectory of this whole thing away from white nationalism and this kind of regressive traditionalist white identity politics Mhmm. Towards something much more progressive and cosmopolitan. Right. Okay? This is what I'm thinking.

So when I think of alt right and how it's portrayed in the media and how it's been portrayed in the media during Trump's whole campaign and his whole run, it was mainly like an opposition against Trump. Right? It was a it was a term that was I don't know if it was hijacked or You mean a way to damage Trump? A way to when I think of when you think of alt right, you're thinking of, like, extreme right wing white nationalist racist people. Right?

Yeah. So what is the actual def what is your how do you define alt right? Well, when I got involved with the thing, the term had been defined by Paul Gottfried, who's a Jew and a libertarian. Okay. So it had no definition.

If we rewind the clock back to October of 2016 Mhmm. It was an amorphous phenomenon. There were these white nationalists involved. Right. And I was concerned looking at what was happening in Europe with the migrants, right, that this nascent alt right in America would fuse with the worst elements in Europe and that we would see a kind of return to fascism.

Okay. And so what I wanted to do was to recalibrate the trajectory. Now, this Londoner exploited that, interest of mine and got himself involved with my attempts to create alliances between Americans, Europeans, and Persians during that period of time. And he actually made the promise to me that his associates would bankroll the formation of a single corporation, the alt right corporation, to fuse a number of different entities. My publisher, Arctos Media, this media outfit called Red Ice Radio and Television, and also a think tank called the National Policy Institute, which at that time Richard Spencer had been running.

And they told me, look, Georgioungi, you be the chairman of this thing, and we're gonna make you a liaison to, to the White House where you'll go in and engage with Steve Bannon and try to influence Trump's policies through engagement with Bannon. And Bannon was known to have been an avid reader of the books put out by my publisher. He's interested in Dugan. He sat down with Dugan at one point, and he's interested in Evola, Julius Evola, and other authors that are published, by my publishing house. So the idea was to turn me into a person who could basically consolidate the European new right and the alt right and be a liaison to the White House.

And the way they hooked me was to tell me that this would facilitate our efforts at regime change in Iran. That was the main, you know, I think, angle of approach that they used to convince me to do this. But here's the thing. Between January of 2017 when that corporation was formed and September of 2017 when I was defamed Mhmm. That funding that was promised never materialized.

And they gave me excuse after excuse after they I mean, Jonathan's people. Gave me excuse after excuse and, Jellyfish, why the funding wasn't coming through. They gave me every excuse. And at some point, I think it was maybe it was in the again, in the spring, I would say, of 2,017, 17, I had had it with them, and I was ready to cut off these people and say, okay. Well, clearly, they've been playing me this whole time.

And then here's what they do in response to that. Jonathan sends me a nearly $1,000,000,000 oil contract. The actual sum was was 800 something, close to $900,000,000 for the reconstruction of the Venezuelan national oil industry. So now if you rewind back to spring of Q What do you mean he sent you a contract? Actually, it was a I don't know, it was, like, maybe a 100 pages, nearly a 100 pages.

And the contract outlined the reconstruction of every aspect of Venezuela's national oil industry. So if you rewind back to, May of 2017, nothing was going on in Venezuela. About 4 or 5 months later, there started to be major protests against the government there. And what he had told me when he sent me this contract was that we, we are going to overthrow the government of Venezuela, and we need to UK is? I don't know on behalf of what entity he was speaking.

Look. When I found out the guy was a Mi 6 operative, but, I mean, we can discuss this also later in the course of our conversation. The intelligence services of countries are routinely infiltrated, and I think that there are many rogue there are many rogue elements and outfits inside certainly our intelligence services in the United States, and I'm sure also in theirs. Right? So I don't know who this we was exactly.

Right? But, clearly, they were controlling the former intelligence director to Blackwater, and they had deep ties in Mi 6. And he said, look. We're gonna overthrow the government of Venezuela, and we need to get into the oil industry before we do that. Now here's the interesting thing.

4 or 5 months later, I forget exact within within 6 months of that time Okay. There was this massive revolt against Maduro in Venezuela. Yes. And the way Maduro put that down is he rounded up the oil bosses. So he knew the coup was coming from within the oil industry.

Okay? So this lines up with what the guy told me. But why am I telling you this? My point is this, that people might look at this and say, like, Georgiana, how were you so naive to be strung along for so long by these people? Well, look.

When someone puts a $900,000,000 oil contract in front of you, and, you know, they seem to be capable of reconstructing the Venezuelan National Oil Industry. And, by the way, I was also told that they were behind this came out in the course Wait. I don't understand. Why did they put it in front of you? What was the purpose of putting it in front of me?

He was just trying to show you, like, showing off? No. No. No. I knew a petroleum engineer at one of the most prominent oil companies in the world.

And he said to me because here's the thing. Remember, they had promised me this money for the Alt Right Corporation, capital investment Okay. To make me chairman of the Alt Right Corporation. Okay. Money never came through.

So now he's saying, look. We'll get you the money by some other means. Here's proof of funds or something? Well, we'll raise the funds. So he said, take this contract to this oil executive that you know, and if his company is willing to carry out this project, you'll get the commission on the deal.

Okay. I see. You'll get the commission. And, by the way, this petroleum engineer said to me, I think probably wisely on his part, he said, look. I don't want any part of this money.

If I get a commission from this deal, you can have all of it. Now that would be a lot more than what they had initially be been promising me as a capital investment to set up the Alt Right Corporation and preside over it as its chairman. So point being these people gave me reason not to dismiss them and disconnect with them. And that's how they strung me along for as long as they did. Interestingly enough, my defamation came, I think, within less than a month of my resigning from the alt right corporation, within 24 hours of Charlottesville.

So the situation Woah. Yeah. Well, the situation was my partners look, here's here's the thing. I was supposed to be the chairman. Right?

But I was also supposed to bring in this money for the corporation. Since I didn't bring in the money, I began to be sidelined by my partners. And by about, well, the summer of 2017, I had completely lost control of this entity. Mhmm. It had become like a Frankenstein's monster.

Right? I lost control of it. And my partners went to Charlottesville and made this mess. And within 24 hours, I said no. No.

No. No. You know, I was still involved at a high level in Iranian opposition lobbying in Washington and so forth. So I said, no. There's no way I wanna be involved with this.

I mean, this has become a travesty, and I resigned. Now I hardly think it's a coincidence that it's only several weeks after my resignation that I was defamed in the New York Times and that they used a video that they they had recorded months prior to that. So let me go back to the bar, the bar in the shadow of the Empire State Building where this young man recorded me. Yes. I did my digging after that, and I found out that this organization that he claimed to represent, Hope Not Hate, some social justice, SJW, Antifa type organization, is actually a front for British intelligence.

It was a front for Mi 5 domestically, initially in Britain, and I think it's opened the branch in the United States. So at this point, probably, it's under the jurisdiction of Mi 6. So point being, that kid was at the very least operating at the behest of people involved with British intelligence. And when did they choose to release this video in the New York Times? After they've lost me as an asset once I have resigned from the alt right corporation.

So from what I'm understanding, whoever is behind this guy, Jonathan, at the Mi 6, they do not want you to create some sort of an alliance between the United States, right wing, Europe, and Iran. Yes. Why? What is their motivation for for for wanting to throw a wrench in that plan? Twofold, at least.

1, on the ideological level, such a constellation of power would prevent the right wing in the West, let's say, in general, from going in a racist, fascist direction Yes. That mirrors what happened in 19 thirties, forties Europe. Why? Because the Iranian youth are not interested in some, Nazi style regime to replace the Islamic Republic. Right.

They're interested in women's equal rights, freedom of expression, and technological and scientific progress. And you probably aren't aware of this, maybe a lot of your audience isn't either. Iran is one of those few countries that enjoys the distinction of having been the world leader in science and technology for 250 years, no less. Between about, let's say, 900 AD and 11 50 AD, while Europe was in the, you know, dark age of medievalism. Right.

Iran was a powerhouse of scientific research and technological innovation. So, you know, the Persians are one of these people who have contributed tremendously to the advancement of knowledge and to, you know, creative innovation on the planet. And it goes back to the basic ethos of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, which I don't know if we get a chance we'll get into. But, you know, the whole teaching of Zarathustra is oriented around the progressive spirit at work in the cosmos and what it means to be a cocreator with the divine and to build a more ideal future for everybody. Right?

It's a very futuristic progressive mindset. And this is what is now overthrowing the Islamic Republic, not just on a political level, but in terms of cultural revolution. And my thinking had been that if I could plug European and American Society into the battery that is the Iranian youth, then I could redirect this right wing reaction in a way that would be much more futurist, progressive, and humanitarian. Got it. You see?

Got it. And clearly somebody in British intelligence doesn't want that to be the case. Now there's another more tangible, let's say, materialistic concern. Why don't you think they want that to be the case? You remember how I was telling you that, in the years leading up to, the, you know, the blitz, in the years leading up to the the, the bombing of London by the Nazis and so on and so forth, Hitler actually tried to make peace Mhmm.

With some well placed aristocrats in Britain. And they had, they had, I mean, like, I think it was something like a third of the House of Lords or so forth that were sympathetic to them. Clearly, there's some kind of an elite element in Britain that is aligned with this, I don't know whether you want to call it National Socialist or Fascist agenda. And, who knows if, you know, they they control the British state, but they may be a rogue element that has a certain agenda that they want to see unfold in the world. And that agenda may include, you know, the rise of a very, you know, racist and hierarchical form of political power in the European continent and in the West at large.

But I think that there's another aspect of this that's much more cynical and, down to earth, and that's that I didn't want Iran to be looted. When I was involved in the opposition, it became very clear to me that, you know, Iran is encircled by corporate vultures who are just waiting for this regime to collapse so that they can come in and recolonize well, colonize the country. Iran never was properly colonized, but it came awfully close when the British and the Russians carved up the country into spheres of influence, in the early 1900 and basically controlled all of Iran's resources. Remember, the British came in in the early 20th century, and they created something called the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which later became British Petroleum. It became British Petroleum after Mohammed Mossadegh kicked their asses out of Iran.

Right? Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected, nationalist prime minister of Iran, nationalized Iran's oil in 1951. And this was a huge blow to the British in particular, and that's when the Anglo Persian Oil Company became what we know as British Petroleum today. Right? So there's a whole history of the exploitation of Iran's resources by foreign powers.

And the agenda that my colleagues and I were pursuing for regime change in Iran was one that would protect Iran's national resources from this kind of foreign exploitation. And I also think that they did not want someone, you know, who looks the way I do and who speaks English as fluently as I do as a native New Yorker and an American to be able to be an international mouthpiece for the defense of Iran's national interests once the Islamic Republic were to be overthrown. So that's a much more cynical agenda that I think was also at play. It's also crazy that they were able to get the New York Times. When did the New York Times reach out to you before they published this?

I think maybe 18 hours beforehand. 18 hours beforehand. Yeah. You can imagine that day for me. I threatened to sue the guy.

I was ranting at him on the telephone. The editor of the show. Yeah. I was like, are you kidding me? You know, this was a 2 hour conversation.

Like, what if you print you know, anyway, because, yeah, I was not happy to say the least. I got about 18 hours heads up from this guy. Yeah. It's interesting that they would publish something like that so quickly. Yeah.

Well, you know, you know this, Danny. With one source? You you know the New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, CBS, they all have intelligence operatives well placed within their organizations. They are controlled, but their narrative is controlled by the Anglo American deep state. And so that suggests to me that one piece of evidence right there, that one data point suggests to me that, actually, whoever was pulling the strings in London is part of the Anglo American establishment because they have that kind of reach with The New York Times.

I've had people on here that have worked with big publications, like, similar to the New York Times, some of them actually with the New York Times. And they've explained their experience with reporting on topics such as, like, covert ops, for example, that the CIA deputy director has a relationship with the editor in chief of some of these publications. Right? And they have to when it comes to reporting on some of these things that involve the CIA, they have to run it by the deputy director or whoever it is that's their liaison at that publication. And typically, they won't just say, no.

Don't run this. This is false or we're denying this so you cannot run this. You're not allowed to run this. They'll say, we're not gonna tell you whether this is true or false, but if you do run this, you could be responsible for tons of innocent lives or operatives that we have embedded in these places that are gonna die. So blood on blood's on your hands.

You you have to also say to them, if you don't run this, there are 5 or 6 other interesting stories that we can help you tell, you know, by dealing you certain sensitive information. They make these kinds of deals with them as well. One of the publications that I went to after my defamation I mean, I didn't go to them, but, I was approached by them, and I thought I would use it as an opportunity to basically clear my name and tell my side of the story because supposedly this publication had a history of speaking truth to power, and, you know, basically exposing corrupt machinations in the context of foreign wars in Iraq and so forth. And that was The Intercept. The Intercept came to me.

Yeah. They did a piece on me. The Intercept came to me, and I'm thinking, okay. Well, you know, it's not the New York Times, right? I mean, they have a history of opposing the deep state, so I thought.

Right? And Is this this isn't the publication that Glenn Greenwald used to. Exactly. Exactly. So here's where I'm going with this is that Glenn Greenwald later came out and basically exposed the fact that he himself couldn't function at the intercept which he co founded Right.

Because the thing had been infiltrated by intelligence people and deep state operatives. Right. Well, that makes sense out of the story they eventually told about me because I went to them with the kind of information that I'm sharing with you, and I shared documents with them. I gave them letters that I I had exchanged with, let's just say, various intelligence people in the course of all these dealings. And so I was giving them documentation of what had happened with me.

Mhmm. And I was expecting a story about, you know, some kind of international intelligence operation and, you know, a philosopher and activist who had gotten caught caught up in it and was ultimately targeted by it. Instead, they published a personal hit piece on me with none of that information in it. One, like, small paragraph saying, Giorgiani claims x, y, and z, but we haven't been able to corroborate whatever whatever. And the rest of it was basically mud smearing yellow journalism from The Intercept not long before Glenn Greenwald left and protest himself.

Wow. So you got a target on your back. Yeah. Absolutely. Intelligence has a big target on you.

That's unsettling. What is that like? How do you live with that? You have to ignore it to the greatest extent possible and just just stay focused on positive goals. Right?

Like, so for example, after the involvement with the alt right, after my activism with the Iranian renaissance, which extended up to 2019 and by the way, we we were planning a coup within the Islamic Republic, and it's when that didn't pan out that I resigned because there were certain there were certain of us How did you plan a coup? Yeah. So here's the interesting thing. There was this president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became infamous in the global media for being a holocaust denier. Mhmm.

And he came and gave a number of controversial speeches here, not just at the UN in his capacity as president, but also Columbia University. And he was kind of a a cartoon character, you know, supposedly very vehemently anti Israel and a representative of uneducated underclass people in Iran. Right? And I had actually protested against him back in 2009, 2010 when he was president. I became a human rights activist and a solidarity protest organizer who was tasked with lobbying the Security Council members of the UN to place sanctions on the regime in Tehran, after this Ahmadinejad was fraudulently reelected.

So I was directly organizing protests against Ahmadinejad back in 2009, which made it all the more ironic that in 2017, 2018, when I was involved with these Iranian opposition people, we found out that actually Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had this guru, Rahim Esfandiyar Mashawi, who was nominally his vice president, but actually his guru, his like spiritual guru. And this Esfandar Moshayi had a very eclectic spiritual worldview, which was well outside the parameters of Orthodox Shiite Islam. And he believed in some kind of a Neo Zoroastrian revival, a revival of ancient Persian mysticism and a fusion of Iran's Aryan identity with Shi'ism. And this masha'i wanted to transition Iran out of an Islamic system and toward a nationalist one. Toward a more populist system that will be more in line with the the will of the Iranian people and their wish to reclaim their historical identity.

And, most interestingly, despite Ahmadinejad being branded as a holocaust denier in the mainstream media, it turned out that Mashi was actually in favor of a secret detente with the state of Israel. So this became one of the reasons for my involvement with a couple of the Mossad characters that I engaged with. Because the Israelis, you know, the Israelis have been talking about bombing Iran for a decade. And no. 2 decades.

I'm sorry. 2 decades. And at that time, in particular, there had been these very violent, vigorous protests against the regime to the point where a lot of Iranians were even actually setting mosques on fire and burning Qurans in the street and so forth. Wow. Yeah.

It's very pop burning Qurans is very popular in Iran today. It's very popular. So but they were burning mosques in these protests in 2017, 20 2018. And the Israelis wanted to use this as a moment of opportunity to potentially come and bomb the nuclear sites and facilitate a regime change. And at least back then, I was very opposed to that.

I was opposed to any form of foreign military intervention in Iran. I wanted to see the regime change at the hands of the Iranian people themselves. We we wanted support. It could be some material support, definitely moral support, but, you know, I wasn't for a military intervention. So I'm hearing from inside the circle in Iran, the circle of Ahmadinejad and Mas'a'i, then not only do they wanna gradually transition out of the Islamic Republic and toward a more nationalist, more Iranian style of government.

Mhmm. They're also open to a secret detente with Israel. Like a, you know, under the table alliance with Israel where they basically share power in the Middle East. And I conveyed this to the Israelis. Basically, I took it upon myself to, like, go to the Israelis and be like That they wanted this.

Yeah. Like, listen. We under look. If there's a coup in Iran, if you see a coup all of a sudden, Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winds up the new leader of the country, not just president, but, like, an because in the Iranian constitution, the president has no power. It's a dictatorship where the supreme leader does everything, and the president is just basically like a, you know, a a diversionary, you know, front man.

Okay. And there was this coup plan to actually put Ahmadinejad and certain other people in power, and my job was to convey to the Israelis that, look, he may sound like, whatever you think, holocaust denier or whatever, but there is a secret agenda to make a detente with Israel, and this is gonna work out to your benefit. So just sit tight. Right? What did they say?

They were very open to that. They were there was a faction around defense minister Avigdor Lieberman who are actually they're quite orthodox. And because they're quite orthodox, they put a lot of stock in this idea of Cyrus the Great as the Messiah of the Jews. You know, in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Isaiah, the only non Jew, the only Goyim who has ever identified as a Moshiach or savior brought by God is Cyrus the great the father of Iran. Whose tomb is a pilgrimage site today for many Iranian youth.

It's like the most sacred Iranians have turned their backs on Mecca, and they bow toward the tomb of Cyrus the great instead. So they were very sympathetic to Iran as a land that is connected with their own spiritual destiny. And they also were I found rather shrewd and pragmatic in terms of working out an under the table understanding with the Islamic Republic. And I sent a letter to Defense Minister Lieberman, which was conveyed by apparent agents of Mossad. And the way that I know that this letter reached him, letter where I was saying, basically, please don't bomb Iran.

Yeah. And, look, if you see a coup, understand that even though it may have a nominally Aryan discourse Mhmm. That means something completely different in the context of our civilization as you well know since the father of our culture is Cyrus the Great. You know, you're Moshiach, so on and so forth. Mhmm.

And, the way I know this letter reached defense minister Lieberman is that at a certain point Netanyahu kicked Lieberman out of the government and he took over the position of defense minister in addition to being prime minister, which is very unusual. There was a time when he was acting both as prime minister, and he took over Lieberman's duties as defense minister. And at that point, they contacted me from Tel Aviv and said, you need to rewrite your letter and address it to prime minister Netanyahu directly. So it appears to have reached him. Anyway, why did I why did I tell this story?

So did you do that? No comment. I wish him luck in in Gaza, and I wish him luck in Lebanon. So why am I telling you this? I'm telling you this because you ask coup in Iran.

Right? So we had this plan where they came and they told us that about 1 third, believe it or not, of the armed forces of Iran, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are supposed to be like the praetorian guard most loyal to the regime. One third of the armed forces in Iran were supposedly ready to turn, and this didn't mean that 2 thirds were for the regime. A lot of them were undecided and in disarray. Mhmm.

And there was this faction around Esfandur Mas'aie and Ahmadinejad, who had the underclass, who had, like, basically, you know, workers and people on welfare and so on and so forth. And the reason they reached out to us is that they said that the people in our circle could represent the intellectual elite, the basically, the intelligentsia of Iranian society. Mhmm. And that they needed, they needed such people in a coalition if they were to be successful because the intelligentsia would not follow Ahmadinejad and Mas'a'i. And so my associates were made this proposal, and they decided not to take it.

They decided not to to accept this offer. And I became very frustrated by that, and that's why I ultimately resigned from that organization, you know, the Iranian renaissance. Because, frankly, even as a as a native born American and native New Yorker, I was ready to get on a plane and go to Tehran and potentially face execution to be part of this coup attempt. They were not because they had cushy jobs in various industries like the oil industry and so forth. And I think, ultimately, their lives were just too comfortable to risk something like that.

And in the end, they went in with people who were more connected to, let's say, you know, intelligence services here and lobbyists in Washington and so on and so forth. Yeah. That that was the only question I had. What was, America's position on this coup? We found vice president Pence to be very sympathetic.

The problem with Trump was that John Bolton was his national security, adviser, and John Bolton is connected to, believe it or not, I know this sounds crazy, an Islamist Marxist terrorist group that's been fighting a civil war against the Islamic Republic since the 19 eighties. So there were these people in the early 19 eighties who had been part of the revolutionary coalition that overthrew the Shah. Right. They were the muscle behind the Islamic revolution, but they were more Marxist, Maoist types Okay. That tried to fuse like a Che Guevara style leftism with Islam.

And in 1983 or so, in the middle of the Iran Iraq war, they defected to the side of Saddam Hussein, and they formed what is essentially a terroristic cult with, like, a North Korea style, you know, cult of personality and closed atmosphere Right. In Iraq. And later, they were kicked out of Iraq, and they wound up rebasing themselves in Albania of all places. Anyway, John Bolton was in their pocket, and John Bolton was the one advising Trump on Iran. So, they had a monopoly on Trump's vision for regime change in Iran, which meant that despite that, Pence was sympathetic to some extent, we had very little latitude to be able to influence Washington policy.

Woah. Deeply entrenched in this stuff, you were. Yes. How and what from a guy who born and raised in New York, philosopher, you're willing to go fight and be executed for this regime change in Iran? Why did you feel so strongly about this?

Why, did Tom Paine go to Paris, you know, after playing a tremendously successful role in catalyzing the American Revolution. I mean, if you look. I'm trained in philosophy. He was a corset maker. I mean, the guy the guy made underwear women's underwear for a living.

But he wrote great books, and he was certainly a first rate thinker. If you read, you know, the age of reason, the rights of man, books that Tom Paine wrote in prison in Paris after he went and enlisted in the French revolution and almost got himself guillotined. Right? Mhmm. He wrote those books thinking that he was facing a certain death sentence.

I mean, rather, the, the age of reason he did, which tears the bible to pieces. In his book, the age of reason, Tom Paine argues that the United States constitution is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, or rather that, you know, a population that believes in the bible cannot constitute a good citizenry for the United States. Really? Yeah. He writes this book in in prison in this is why he's not on Mount Rushmore, which he should be.

He's like the black sheep among the founding fathers. They all thought that he said publicly what many of them thought privately a little too often. Anyway, my point is this, that look. You can be a thinker who has all kinds of idealistic aspirations for how you wanna see the world change, and you can elaborate, very transcendent and inspiring principles to try to recalibrate the direction of society. But unless you're willing to get your hands dirty and stake your life on it, you know, who knows whether your vision will ever materialize or who, in the wake of your inevitable death someday, might misappropriate your vision, right, to create some kind of a tyrannical system.

I mean, this is what happened with Marx. Marx would never have endorsed the Soviet Union. Right? So maybe Marx should have been more of an activist during his own lifetime. Right.

What was it inherent in you that made you explore all these deep thoughts? And and what is your, this might be a stupid question, but what is, like, your process when you are writing about this stuff? Okay. There's a lot of questions there. Sorry.

Very compound questions. Yeah. So first of all, I think it's a number of of things, that, you know, made me the thinker that I am. I had certain intellectual interests from the get go, even in my teenage years, in looking on the one hand at the religious history of mankind and on the other hand at cutting edge developments in the sciences. Right?

Boundary define paradigm defying, breakthroughs in the sciences and seeing, you know, how science and religion could be reconciled. That was an an a very early intellectual interest of mine. At, let's say, 15, 16 years old, I was on the one hand reading the physicist David Bohm, the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Talbot and his theory of the holographic universe. And on the other hand, I was reading, you know, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dao De Ching, and, you know, various other, you know, Sufi texts and spiritual treasures of human history. So this question of the relationship between science and religion was one that I had on a theoretical level from a very early age, but then also I had experiences that shaped my thinking, you know.

What kind of experiences? 

NDE

I write about the paranormal in a very abstract way and with a view to developing novel philosophical concepts that can help us to understand why, you know, what we take to be reality works the way that it does. But I've also had personal experiences of what you might call, you know, the paranormal. And they started, you know, fairly early on. Right?

So at the same time that, I was reading, you know, Edge Science, like Bauman Sheldrake on the one hand, and reading Indian and Persian mystical texts and and Taoist scriptures, I also had a near death experience when I was, I think, actually, 14. I was at a a sleepaway summer camp in Amherst at Amherst College. It was like a prep school slash summer camp type of thing. And one night, I think it was probably around 2 o'clock in the morning, I'm asleep in my bed, and I noticed that my heart is beating. I'm asleep, but I become aware of the fact that I'm sleeping.

And there's no sensory stimuli whatsoever. It's just blackness. And I become aware of my heartbeat, and it gets slower and slower until it stops. And when my heart stopped, I felt myself shoot out of my body, not through the crown of my head. You know, people talk about crown chakra or whatever, but it was actually through my feet that I left my body.

And I was pulled into this voidness, which I don't know, you know, it's it's really almost indescribable. It's ineffable, but it was like a a bluish black seething dynamic energy that was at the same time a void and it felt like it would annihilate my whole persona that I would be swallowed by this and when I went into this vortex I saw my own death in the future. Now, let me be very careful to to to make this point here, that one strong line of argument throughout all of my philosophical work is against any kind of determinism. Okay? And I make a very strong case that we have free will or or at least some degree of significant agency and intentionality.

This we can come back to my argument against god. This is one of the reasons why I reject the idea of an all knowing and all powerful god because I think that that very idea is inimical to an affirmation of our free will. So, you know, I don't think anything is fated. There's no future that's fated, and I can tell you some interesting stories that remote Faded. Can you what does that what does that mean?

There's no such thing as fate. The future Fate. Okay. Okay. There's no such thing as fate.

We're not fated to live anything in the future, and I can tell you interesting stories from some of the remote viewers I've known. Like, for example, I'll tell you a story about, the time when Lynn Buchanan was hired to see the next 911 after 911 happened and how he actually changed that timeline, but we'll come back to that. You said you saw your own death. Yeah. So I saw my own death in the future.

And I don't wanna say too much about this because I you know, I don't wanna give anyone any ideas, but, basically, it was in the context, I have to say disturbingly enough, of a second American civil war, and I was not old. And I saw my death, and, after that, I came back to the room. And I tell you, the the closet in front of me was open. The 2 closet doors were open, and I I'm not a fearful person. As you might gather from some of the things I've told you already, I I don't scare easily.

But looking into the darkness of that closet at 2:30 in the morning or whatever it was after I came out of this experience, I felt like the blackness of that closet was going to swallow me. And I could not stand for another minute being in that room. So I got up, and I went down the hall to my friend's room. And this this guy, he had come to this summer camp with me, but he had been my best friend for many years. And he was a few doors down.

And I wake him up, and I sit down next to him, and he slowly wakes up. And as soon as he looks at me, he looks into my eyes, and he gets the most terrified expression on his face that I've ever seen on another person. And he goes back under his covers, and he won't come out. And I've notice, I'm already flipped out myself. I'm coming there looking for some consolation, and this is how my best friend reacts.

So I find myself repeatedly saying to the guy, it's just me. It's just me. What are you doing? Why are you reacting like this? It's just me.

And he comes out from under the covers and slowly, very hesitantly peers at me. And then and I said, well, what the hell was that? Why did you react like that? And he said, it was your eyes. They weren't your eyes, and it was like you were looking right through my soul.

So then we're sitting there, and now it's almost 3 o'clock in the morning. Right? And somebody knocks on the window. Amherst College, middle of nowhere, Massachusetts, small town, 3 o'clock in the morning, knock on the window. And at first, we're, like, really freaked out, and we don't wanna even pull the curtain aside to see who the hell this might be.

But they keep knocking, and we do. And there's this guy standing out there in the dark with a giant instrument case, like, I don't know, violin case or some kind of, you know, musical and he says, do you know the way to the opera house? And I go to him, this is a college. What opera house? What are you talking about?

This is a college. And he goes like this to me. And we closed the curtains, and that was that. So that happened when I was 14. How did you so how did you die?

Did you think you you had a your heart actually stopped? All I can tell you is Or is this some sort of crazy dream? It look. And no. It was not a dream.

It was definitely not a dream. All I can tell you is, as we say in philosophy, phenomenologically speaking. Right? Being very attentive to what I actually experienced. At the time, it felt like my heart stopped.

Would there was there any reason that would have happened? Did you did you take anything? No. No. No.

I didn't take any drugs or anything like that. No. No. Now, the other possibility is this, that look, there are phenomena where there's a kind of dilation of consciousness where your sense of the passage of time changes dramatically. And one possibility Dilation of consciousness.

Yeah. So, like, you can you know, when you're in very intense states of consciousness, time flows differently for you. Yes. You don't notice how many hours have gone by. Right.

And you're completely immersed in something. Right? And it's possible that what actually was happening is that my my sense of time warped to where it slowed down to where I actually my consciousness sank into the space between 2 heartbeats. That feeling as if my heartbeat were getting slower and slower was actually my experience of the passage of time changing. But in any case, it basically was this NDE where I left my body and I saw this precognitive vision of my death.

And I'm sure that that acted as a significant catalyst, like a lightning bolt to, you know, to to further, intensify my interest in, you know, these edge science subjects and religious scriptures and so forth that I was reading at the time already. Did you write about this after it happened? No. I mean, first of all, it was unforgettable, so I didn't need to write it down. I write a lot of things down, but this was so unforgettable.

I couldn't write it down. I didn't need to write it down. But here's the interesting thing is that I couldn't even talk to anybody about this. I tried to tell a couple people about this. And, again, I said, I'm I am not a person who scares easily, but the emotional impact of this event was such that whenever I tried to tell anybody about it, I just felt like I was gonna start weeping.

So I couldn't talk about it for a long time. And you said it was in the context of an American Civil War, and you were not old. Yes. There was a second American Civil War. There was massive or some kind of just massive urban upheaval, uprising in this country.

And I was I was dead in that context, let's just say, not to get into the details. And the situation doesn't look too good right now. How much have you thought about that? I've thought about it quite a bit. But, you know, I don't I look.

I don't wanna be morbidly preoccupied with it. One has to focus on positive projects and and concrete goals. Right? 

PARANORMAL SCIENCE

But let me tell you, I brought up in the course of that story, this example of how it is that we have free will and that we can shift timelines and why nothing is inevitable. I was sitting in Lynn Buchanan's living room a few years back.

You know, he was the chief trainer for the entire CIA remote viewing program. He's the guy who trained all the other guys. Yeah. And I was gonna I was gonna say Joe McMonagle also saw his own death, didn't he? Yes.

That's right. That's right. So Lynn was in, involved with Joe McMonagle and Project Stargate, and he was there through the changing of hands of the program from the CIA to the DOD. And he was the guy responsible for training the other Ace remote viewers. And he told me that, I believe it was sometime after he had already yeah.

He had already retired, and he was doing private corporate consulting. So companies they still come to him. Companies come to him and ask him to do remote viewing for them. And so this is what he was doing, but the government actually came back to him sometime in the early 2000. I forget what it was.

2003, 2004, somewhere in there. And they said to him, we want you to remote view the next 911. We wanna know what the next terrorist attack against the United States on that scale is going to be. When is this, by the way? Early 2000.

Early 2000. Yeah. I forget the exact year. So early right after 911? Yeah.

Exactly. They came to him, and they said, look. We want we understand you're retired, but, you know, do us a favor and remote view the next 911 for us. And he did. He put a team together, and they remote viewed this event.

And they said Islamic terrorists were going to approach the United States in boats that were full of biological agents, that it was gonna be a horrendous biowarfare attack on the southeastern seaboard of the United States. So, like, in an area between, I think, like, the Carolinas and, like, Georgia, like, that area. Right? And he said they were gonna come in on these boats and these once they got to the coast, they were gonna release this biological contagion, and it would be far worse than 911. Tens and tens of thousands of people would die.

And he was able to give them the date down to the day of when this was gonna happen. So here's what happens. On that day, the coast guard goes out, and they intercepted these ships. These ships were coming to the United States, and they did have these biological agents on them, and they were intercepted. And these people were around there.

Recorded? I could understand why if this happened, it would be classified. But this is what he told me, that he got confirmation that he had been correct, and that based on the intelligence he provided, the terrorists were intercepted. And know when when was this day? I don't think he told me the date.

I don't think year? I don't remember. He did tell me the year, but it was in the early 2000. And this is what he told and so here's my point, is that he saw this event take place vividly. It's a clear precognition of the future.

So clear he was able to volunteer the date, but he changed the timeline. So this is, you know, empirical evidence for the ontological fact that we have free will or some degree of intentionality and agency, that nothing is fated. How so? How how so in the sense that, look, if, for example, you're me and you see your own death, it doesn't necessarily have to happen that way. You can change the course of events and leads to Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah. Because they were able to intercept them. Yeah. That that that's to you. And this has happened many times.

Look. The remote viewers used, precognitive remote viewing routinely in order to engage in, hostage rescue attempts. Mhmm. When, like, for example, American hostages were taken, prisoner in Lebanon in 19 eighties and so forth. They would routinely try to see the future movement of hostages and things like that so they could send people to intercept them and retrieve them at certain places.

Yeah. This is something I've read about in Annie Jacob. I first read about it in Annie's book, Phenomena Yep. Yep. Where she, she talks to Edgar Mitchell.

Going back from then, he talks about he did this, like, secret experiment coming back to the from the moon, seeing if he could, do some sort of telekinesis or remote viewing on his way back. And, you know, it's interesting too. All of this science, this, sort of squishy science, she calls it, science that can't be replicated in a laboratory. Right? It's not it's not, duplicatable.

Right. And it's hard to measure. It all came from the Nazis. Yes. Okay.

So 2 very interesting subjects. Let's start with the hard to measure. Right? And here, we're we're getting into the meat of my work, you know, my actual philosophical ideas. I would push back on the fact that it's hard to measure.

There are all kinds of sciences. And one of the most misguided things that scientists try to do, irrespective of which discipline they're in, is to hold, every science to the standard of rigor that obtains in physics. Right? The scientific method. No.

Well, look. But look. There's a scientific method in sociology too. Mhmm. There's a scientific method in psychology too.

Right. Okay. It doesn't mean that the dynamics of somebody's personal psychology or, the evolution of various societies and, you know, what it is that produces social crises or what it is that, you know, what conditions are likely to lead to the collapse of government are phenomena that are as predictable as, you know, atomic physics. Right? Right.

So depending on what domain you're studying, different standards of rigor are appropriate. Not everything is equally amenable to, you know, mathematical modeling and prediction. Right. Right? And insofar as psi is a human ability, just like sports ability or like the virtuoso talent of musicians, human beings are not mechanical contraptions.

You're not going to be able to predict their behavior with the same standard that, you know, you can predict. I don't know, rocket trajectories in Newtonian physics. It's absurd to expect that. So different sciences have methodologies that are appropriate to the domain that they're researching. Absolutely.

Right? And Psi is a phenomenon to some extent of biology, but to a great extent of psychology. Right? And you should never expect, the kind of repeatability that you have in physics and chemistry in the domain of parapsychology Mhmm. Research.

Mhmm. But I think a bigger problem is that, you know, the sciences always operate within the context of 1 or another paradigm. Right? So you have hypotheses that are testable, and in any given scientific theory, there are a number of hypotheses that come together to form that theory. But various scientific theories are also only possible in the context of a paradigm, which is an overarching framework of assumptions, of basic assumptions, that orient your perspective on things in general.

It's like a theoretical framework. Not not so pre theoretical. A pre theoretical framework of abstract thought that defines what questions are even being asked to begin with and what's being marginalized as outside the scope of inquiry. It's like a narrowed perspective on one or another domain. Mhmm.

And this defines what theories can even be elaborated in the first place. Thomas Kuhn, in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in the 19 sixties, he made this argument that scientific paradigms are radically political, that the that the revolutions that take place in the history of science, the Copernican revolution in physics, the Darwinian revolution, are as political as political revolutions. And that the reason why groups of scientists in one or another period invest in, a particular paradigm. And, the way in which these paradigms get entrenched and limit the kinds of questions that are even asked and the kinds of subjects that are researched, it's thoroughly political. It's motivated by the same psychological dynamics as people's commitment to one another political ideology.

Greed is a huge part of that? That's huge because funding. You know, you don't get funding in various, you know, areas of scientific research unless you're conforming to the established criteria for what's legitimate to research or not. Right. Right?

And unless you're working with an already established set of theories. Right? So you have, for example, in physics today, this fundamental contradiction between Einsteinian relativity and quantum theory. Mhmm. And, you know, in the UFO subject, it's a very hotly debated issue of whether there's a third theory that's going to there's whether there's a third theory that's going to encompass both relativity and quantum theory and give us a working knowledge of gravity that would allow, you know, 0 point energy propulsion, that would allow electro gravitic propulsion.

Right. But one of the things that I argue in my philosophical works is that it's a mistake to think that scientific theories are meant to accurately represent some objectively existing reality. That scientific theories are like mirrors, where all you need to do is polish the mirror well enough, and you're gonna get a reflection of structures that exist in nature so that we assume that Relativity is an imperfect mirror and quantum theory is an imperfect mirror and there's some other theoretical mirror that's going to reconcile these 2 that's going to give us a more adequate reflection of the nature of reality right and it's going to afford us the breakthrough to electro gravitic propulsion. I think that's mistaken theories I argue coming from out of Kuhn Wichenstein Heidegger, other people in the history of philosophy and science. Theories are toolkits.

They're toolboxes. They have an ultimately practical significance. A scientific theory is only as good as what we can do with it, which, by the way, is why string theory was such a con job in the last 20 years. Right? String theory is this elaborate mathematical formalism, which has absolutely no practical significance, and it has really no testability either.

And I think probably the thing was developed as a ruse to move mainstream researchers away from any kind of research trajectory that would lead to cracking quantum gravity. Yeah. Who do you think was behind that ruse? Aliens? No.

No. Have you seen that show, that new show, 3 body problem? Yeah. I have. Fascinating how they're on their way here, and they're trying to sub subvert our science our science on it.

It was good aesthetically. Some of the storytelling was good. I had a couple of really big problems with it. Yeah. One was that, what is this, like, you know, less than light speed travel?

LOCKHEED MARTIN's UNDERGROUND SPACE FACILITY

You know, these people don't have zero point energy. What's the sound light speed? Yeah. What the hell is that? I mean, we have in Lockheed right now, there are craft that can go to Mars in a few hours right now in Lockheed.

And this show is talking about, like, where the aliens are traveling at certain percentages of the speed of light. That was one problem I had with it is the engineering and physics. The other problem I had is the whole show took place within the context of a very reductionist materialist paradigm that did not, acknowledge Psi, didn't acknowledge ESP and psychokinesis. And the fact that these aliens would probably have these abilities, you know, to a much greater degree than terrestrial humanity. Right.

So so these were, you know, some plot points that I had a problem with. Mhmm. But it was entertaining for sure. What did you think about those, those photons, those protons that were quantumly entangled to help us you're saying that they wouldn't have needed those? They would have been able to some use some sort of telekinesis or or psycho Well, the sophons, I if I'm not mistaken, if I remember correctly, in that show, were portrayed as a form of artificial intelligence, that they were like nanomachines that were working based on a kind of artificial intelligence.

Mhmm. Right. And what I think is that even the artificial intelligence systems that we're developing now at OpenAI and Google and so forth Mhmm. Are demonstrating sciability. And this is one of the things that's being covered up by the engineers.

They're terrified of it. They don't understand it, and they're trying to pass it off as bugs and glitches in the system. But really they're encountering psi in the context of laboratory r and d on AI, which by the way is something that I predicted in my book Prometheism, which was written in 2020. I predicted exactly this, that high level, big budget AI research would eventually provide the final validation of parapsychological phenomena. And that what I call the spectral revolution, you know, like the Copernican revolution, Darwinian revolution, the spectral revolution that makes parapsychology mainstream is going to come about not in a parapsychology repertoire, but in a really well funded AI r and d program.

Mhmm. And that's in fact what's happening. So how do you know what they have at, at JPL? How do you know they have Not JPL. Lockheed.

Lockheed. How do you know that Lockheed has this technology that we can get to Mars in a couple hours? So I know a guy who has been to one of these facilities. I don't think I should mention who he is, but he is, let's say Not Jack Sarfati. I'm sorry, Jack.

No disrespect. Love you, Jack. Yeah. Yeah. There's a reason that guy hasn't been dealt in.

Okay? The reverse I mean, not the least of which is that he goes out and publicly advertises everything that anyone ever tells him. So, you know, I don't think that I don't think that Lockheed or or, Northrop or anyone would be willing to deal him into any of these reverse engineering programs. But I know this guy who was involved in the intelligence military intelligence at a high level. And actually, I know 2 people, 2 different people, who've been to this facility.

And they say that, you know, you know, Lockheed has, I think, some some assets in Nevada, but they have a lot of corporate facilities in California, in the state of California. And, supposedly, there is this, shack on the side of a highway in California that looks like some nondescript warehouse, small warehouse. And you go into this warehouse, and the whole floor of the warehouse is an elevator. Mhmm. And it drops Lord knows how many hundreds of feet, and you're inside of a, basically, a facility carved out of rock deep underground.

Yeah. And what this guy said is that they are not only reverse engineering craft from retrieved debris in this facility, but they're actually training pilots to fly them. And he told me that the main problem that they have in that training program is that the pilots experience extreme disorientation because of the the warping of space time by these craft. In other words, they discovered early on and this is, I think, one of the main reasons, and we can get into this in in much more depth if you if you want. This is one of the main reasons this technology is being hidden because they discovered very early on that these are not simply devices with propulsion systems capable of navigating space very quickly.

Like, they can take you from New York to Australia and you know? Right? They're flying time machines. They warp time as they traverse space. Right.

Right. And our pilots don't know how to handle that. They have a very hard time. They get disoriented, temporarily disoriented. They get, like, their sense of the passage of time gets really messed with.

How do you know this wasn't just some sort of intelligence agent or intelligence operative trying to disseminate some wacky information like the other guy? Well, if I were to tell you who it was, I think most people wouldn't think that. But all I can tell you That's the problem with this whole topic. That that is the fundamental problem with this whole UFO topic. It's because so many people have such crazy outlandish claims, and every single one of them, almost all the almost every single time, they're saying that this person they can't divulge where they got the information, who the person is.

Yeah. And that's why this topic has been so frustrating for me. Yeah. I'll tell you at dinner who he is. Okay.

So, he was but I but I'll tell you this. He was an extremely salt of the earth person, and he was involved in the in the military intelligence community for decades. And, anyway, I'll just leave it at that. But one of the funny things is he showed me this model that they had been using back in the 19. It looked like maybe it was something from the sixties to teach these pilots how much time dilation there is per the amount of space that they've traversed in these vehicles.

It was like some kind of a gyroscopic device. And it showed that if you traverse, you know, this much distance in space, there's this much dilation in time. And the reason he had this thing is because it was antiquated. It was, like, from the sixties, and they weren't using it anymore. They had ripped it out, and it was like a an heirloom.

You know? Yeah. And they basically gave it to him as a keepsake. So which I found interesting. But and I tried to take a picture of it, but he picked it up and took it away from me.

So, anyway, he told me he went down into this facility and that they're reverse engineering stuff and that they're trying to train pilots in how to fly these reverse reverse engineered zero point energy craft. But okay. What's the really important thing about that? Is that on the theoretical level, I've written extensively in Closer Encounters, about how UFOs are actually time machines. And if you really stop and think through that carefully, you realize why under the current sociopolitical conditions, this technology can't be released.

EARTH's TIMELINE IS BEING MANIPULATED

With the kind of society we have, domestically, globally, with the state that humanity is in, at the present time, the release of that kind of technology into the public sphere would be utterly catastrophic. Right? I mean, you can't give Tom, Dick, and Harry a time machine to put in their garage. You see? That's the thing.

It's not like these are Jetson's cars that just, you know, fly you across country really fast. They allow you to traverse different epochs in human history. And I think one of the reasons that our history is so messed up, you know, when you look at these really regressive, tyrannical religious belief systems and the kinds of political structures that formed around them and that were fortified by them. I think a lot of what's going on there is that our timeline has been manipulated. It's been manipulated at all junctures from the present far into the future.

Right? So the technological singularity is this moment when you have a convergent advancement of all kinds of technologies from genetic engineering to nanotech to artificial intelligence, cybernetics, and so forth. And they advance they start to advance exponentially. So it's no longer a curve slowly sloping up. Right?

It becomes a spike on a graph. The curve becomes a spike. There's such an acceleration in the development of these technologies, and any one of them facilitates breakthroughs in the others at such a speed where all of them converge in a way that the human mind is no longer capable of wrapping itself around. And we call it a singularity or a spike on the graph of the history of human technological development because past that spike, we can't project anymore from the past into the future. It's a limit on our human capacity to project what future developments may take place on the other side of that singularity.

Right? And so, for example, today you're seeing, AI crack problems in genetic engineering and gene sequencing and crack problems in nanotechnological engineering that we've never been able to, work our way through. And so all of these things are are reinforcing each other. And within about, you know, 10 to 20 years from now, the kind of 0 point energy that Lockheed is working on is going to be a physics a physics, theorem that AI arrives at in the public sphere and that basically any competent industrial base could, actualize using the latest nanotechnology. I mean, the singularity represents a moment when it's no longer possible to hide various lines of scientific research and and technological development.

Okay? Because you're gonna have such a tremendous convergence of these different technologies that, you know, you can basically ask the artificial intelligence, look, here's what I wanna develop. You know, there's whatever mercury, thorium, 0 point energy device. Given your existing knowledge base in physics and nanotech and so forth, give me the schematic for it. Mhmm.

We're a decade away from that at most right now. So we face a real serious crisis because that means we're a decade or 2 away from Tom, Dick, and Harry having a time machine in their garage. And that means the disintegration of our current social fabric. Okay. I wanna go there.

There there's a whole rabbit hole to explore on on that question itself and how that relates to society and globalism and all that. But before that, you you were talking about you you you said that Lockheed has possession of this machine that can do this, like, a manipulate time, and they are going forward in time and manipulating the timeline, who is doing this? I hope Lockheed isn't doing it. No. I I wasn't trying to suggest that they are.

Well, who how do you know that this timeline is being manipulated? How do you know that? And and who do you think is doing it? There is a researcher, Michael Cremo, who wrote a book with a guy called Richard Thompson. Thompson's a PhD in I forget which scientific field.

And the book was called Forbidden Archaeology. It's a tome. It's about this thick. It's in the same general area, same general vein of research as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval and, Robert Schoch, people who study Yeah. Deep history, you know, prehistory.

Archaeological remains from prehistory that challenge our accepted views of the historical timeline. Right? Except Crimo and Thompson's work in Forbidden Archaeology is more radical insofar as they go through the history of scientific journals back into the 1800, and they show how many discoveries there were reported by very prestigious publications of clearly engineered structures and artificial objects stuck in geological strata that are 1000000 of years old. Like polished concrete walls in a stratum that dates to, I don't know, 200000000 years ago, or gold chains, jewelry that's, at a stratum geological stratum of 60000000 years ago. There are tens and tens of these discoveries that they present in this book that were in prominent scientific journals, and then slowly in the 20th century were filtered out of what it was acceptable to publish, given what became the standard, human history taught in the academies.

Mhmm. So there are a couple of different ways you could look at that. One is you could imagine that even though there's not much of a fossil record for it, humanity goes back 100 of 1000000 of years on this planet. I doubt that very much because again there isn't a fossil record, but we find dinosaur bones all the time. We don't find large populations of humans that are contemporaneous with, you know, the Jurassic period.

The other way that you could interpret those findings, though, is that human time travelers, on a very limited basis, were living in those epochs and left artifacts behind. So that's one piece of empiric one line of empirical evidence that you could use to argue for time travel. So you're saying that this could have been happening in the 1800? No. No.

What I'm saying is that up to the 1800, these things were reported on in scientific journals. Right? Like, up to the 1800, you had, like, I don't know, Smithsonian Institution and whatever reporting on a gold locket found in a geological stratum that dates to 60,000,000 BC. Yes. Right?

There are lots of these finds. But we don't know about those anymore. No. We have those journals. We have access to those journals.

We still have access to those journals. Absolutely. My point is Cremo and Thompson, they wrote this tome, Forbidden Archaeology, where they go through all of this evidence. They present case after case. And they have their own interpretation of what this means.

Okay? Because they come from a kind of Vedantic yeah. That's the book. They come from a kind of Vedantic background. You know, they they subscribe to form of Vedic religion.

And in the, you know, in the Hindu religion, there is the notion that there are these vast cycles of time. They call them yugas, the the ages. Mhmm. Right? And we're in the last of them now, supposedly, the Kali Yuga.

But the whole cycle begins with the Sakhya Yuga, the golden age, and then it goes to a silver age. And the Greeks had the same thing, silver age, bronze age until you get to our present time, which is supposed to be the last of the world ages. And this whole cycle then repeats itself. So Crimo and Thompson come from the school of thought that, look, humanity has always existed, and we are living in a fallen world. We're living in a degraded age, and we're we've lost our knowledge of previous ages of higher civilization.

And they think this goes way way back, like, that humanity existed in its present form tens and tens of 1000000 of years ago. I don't agree with their interpretation of their own evidence. I think that that's a religious belief system, which they subscribe to. And my much more radically empiricist pragmatic approach to the data they're presenting is to say the best way to make sense out of this is that these artifacts were left behind by human time travelers and that the past is contaminated by the future. Wow.

This is fun this is one of the reasons why or or one of the the ways that sort of the sorry to interrupt. This is sort of the opposite of Graham Hancock's idea is that there was a crazy advanced civilization that got wiped out by comets, and we hit a reset button. You're saying this advanced civilization was from the future? Exactly. I started reading Graham Hancock when I was maybe 15.

I read all of the books that he had published, you know, back then in the in the late nineties. But then I did a lot more research. And, see, the thing is when you're coming from out of a background in philosophy, you have to engage with all kinds of different research domains. Yeah. And one of the problems with anthropological researchers like Hancock, or on the other hand, UFO researchers, whether they're coming from a physics background or, you know, I don't know, from a from a sociology background or whatever, is that they stay only within their own research domain, and and they don't look at what's going on in another field.

EARTH'S POLE SHIFT and ANTARCTICA

They're not interdisciplinary enough. And my work has been radically interdisciplinary from the beginning. So I've been able to cross correlate different bodies of data. And one of the things that Graham Hancock talks about, which I find very compelling, is the evidence for Antarctica having been Atlantis. In his first book, fingerprints of the gods Mhmm.

Where he's drawing from the earlier research of Rand Flemeth. He makes this and Charles Hapgood. Flemeth's work was dependent on this historian, Charles Hapgood, who I think taught at Boston College back in the day. And Hapgood had this theory that and, by the way, Hapgood worked with the CIA for a time, so he was, like, a government funded scientist. And Hapgood had this theory that, to oversimplify it, in the course of the various ice ages, the earth becomes top heavy.

Mhmm. And at a certain point, the ice sheet pulls on the mantle of the earth Yeah. And it causes it to slip. It rather, it causes the surface of the Earth to slip over the mantle like this loose skin of an orange. Mhmm.

And that, in some cyclical fashion, every, I don't know, maybe 12000 years or so shift? Well, there is a shifting of the pole in the sense that by 3 or 4000 kilometers, the location of the pole shifts. Not like drastically, like the earth flips over or anything like that. Right. By a few 1000 kilometers, which means that, you know, let's say circa 12000 years ago, 10,500 BC or so, the Younger Dryas period, Antarctica would have been mostly where Argentina is today and had mostly the climate of of Argentina today, except one side of Antarctica would have been already inside the polar south polar region.

And we have evidence for this because, apparently, in Antarctica, the ice sheet is not thickest where you'd expect it would be, right at the South Pole. Mhmm. The ice sheet is thickest in the part of Antarctica that would already have been in the South Pole prior to the slippage of the crust. Right. Because it was the place where, you know, there was already massive snowfall and so forth.

See? So and we also have evidence for this in Siberia in terms of this flash flooding and then freezing of the mammoths, who they froze so quickly Right. That they have undigested food in their stomachs. Yeah. Right?

That's where the flower the younger dry flower. Right. So but here's where I'm going with this is that I think there's a lot of compelling evidence for the fact that Atlantis or whatever we wanna call this civilization that Plato writes about. Yeah. Plato says it was destroyed 9,000 years before his time, which lines up with, you know, Hancock and Bauval Yeah.

And Robert Shaughnessy. Years ago. Yeah. Yeah. Because 12000 years ago, the 3 pyramids on the Giza Plateau line up perfectly with the 3 stars of Orion's belt, and the Sphinx is looking at its counterpart, the constellation of Leo, as it rises into the sky.

At the dawn. Yeah, at the dawn on the spring equinox. Exactly. So that gives us a time stamp for when the Giza Plateau Monuments were planned. Right?

But now here here's where I'm going with it. It's somewhere much more interesting that has to do with time travel. If Atlantis was Antarctica and they had such a high level of civilization. Right? How high a level?

How high a level? Look at the Baalbek platform in Lebanon. The stones in the pyramid, the Great Pyramid, which we still can't figure out how the hell these things were moved and positioned, they're in the hundreds of ton range. Mhmm. The biggest ones are in the hundreds of ton.

At Baalbek in Lebanon, there is a platform which consists of 3, 1300 ton stones. They're 1200 to to 300 tons apiece. Yeah. We've we've gone over these on this. Can you pull up those Baalbek?

They are raised on top of a 40 foot platform of smaller megaliths. Right? Which, like, who does that? I mean, if you're gonna drag stones this big, wouldn't you use them as the foundation course and then put smaller stones on top? No.

These people apparently decided to show off by lifting these 1,300 ton stones, these trilithons, and putting them on top of smaller Right. Megalithic stones. And, again, just like at Giza, just like at, Tiwanaku in Bolivia Mhmm. Just like at various sites in Peru Look. Is that is that is that one of them?

Yeah. Well no. Look. That one, that's just by itself? The second one in the middle.

Yeah. With the red lines. Yep. Same in on that. Yes.

But yeah. But I want you to go back to the other one too. Yeah. You can see the scale of a person next to those. Look at the the one above there, how small a person is next to those.

Go up. Yeah. Look at that. Look at the scale of that. But if you could go back to that one that was buried Oh, the the, the sky.

Right there. The K? Now that is in the quarry where these stones came from. Yep. That quarry is 50 miles away from the site.

Yes. 50 miles. How did they take 1,300 ton stone? You know, 19 cranes of the highest industrial grade that we have today can't lift and move one of these. They've done the the engineering, calculations.

How did they move that thing 50 miles? You know why that's buried there? Because they wanted to tell us that that's where the quarry was and that they've somehow managed to move that stone 50 miles to build the platform at Belbek. Mhmm. Alright.

Here's my point. That gives you a sense of the level of engineering capability of this civilization. It's beyond ours. Way beyond ours. Way beyond ours.

The problem is there's no saw blades or toasters or anything in the desert out there. And there's no large scale evidence for this civilization other than these megalithic structures Nothing. In various places in the world. You know where I think there's going to be a jackpot of a plethora of evidence for it? Under the ice of Antarctica.

And here's where I'm going with this. If you're a civilization that advanced, why do you isolate yourself to Antarctica? Why would you do that? Right. You tell me.

Any thoughts why you would do something like that? Why you would isolate yourself? You have this level of technology. Right? And after the cataclysm, you go around the world and you build these various megalithic sites, which which leave a record of the level of your technical achievement.

How do we know it was after the cataclysm? Well, we know Giza was after the cataclysm. We do? Yeah. I mean the ground plan dates to 10,500 BC.

And if you line that up with Plato and you line it up with the end of the ice age and the massive flooding, it's just after that cataclysm that that site was built. Also You're talking about the Great Pyramid? Yes. The well, the the 3 pyramids and the Sphinx, and there are other structures like the Osirian and Abydos in Egypt. They're all in the same style.

They're all in this anonymous high precision megalithic style. What did you say was the evidence that it happened 10000 BC? Well, the Giza ground plan, like we were just talking about. The Giza ground plan. Yeah.

The alignment of the 3 stars of Orion of the 3 stars of Orion's belt with the 3 pyramids and the alignment of the Sphinx with its counterpart on the horizon, that gives us an astrological date of the age of Leo. Yes. And that happens to be right after the great flood took place, right, through the melting of the ice sheets. Between 12,900 years ago and, like, yeah. Round about There's, like, a 1000 year period there in the Younger Dryads.

And this is, again, also when Plato tells us Atlantis was destroyed. But if you go to South America, the Mayans also say that the people who built these megalithic structures, the people of Quetzalcoatl Mhmm. That the people of the Feathered Serpent, they came there after the great flood. That's what they say. And they started making these constructions there and teaching the locals agriculture and, trying to restart civilization in various ways.

So it also aligns with what the myths tell us. Now my question is this. If you have that level of technology, why would you isolate yourself to Antarctica? Antarctica is a place that's completely isolated. Think about it.

Right? Mhmm. All the oceans of the world, the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, they meet around Antarctica, and it's sort of hidden away from all the other continents of the planet to the extent that we did not discover it until, like, the 1800, except, of course, it's on a few anomalous maps. The Piri Rais map and the Laurentius Phineas map and so on and so forth. But we didn't find in in our modern western civilization, we didn't find the damn continent until the 18 hours.

Do you think it was safer there? Here's what I think. If they were time travelers, they needed to isolate themselves from the timeline. If you were coming from the year 22100 or the year 35100 and For whatever reason you needed to reach back into the deep past of humanity Right let's say earth suffers some horrendous cataclysm or let's say they fought a war with an enemy that vanquished them and their only retreat was backwards in time to hide in time you might be motivated by some kind of you know noble intention not to mess with the human timeline to the extent that you can avoid it and Initially you might decide to quarantine yourself to a place where you're not gonna be observed by the other evolving societies on Earth. And Antarctica would be the ideal place from which to do that on this planet.

Wow. So I think under that ice in Antarctica, we're gonna find the jackpot. It's not gonna be like these scattered megalithic sites. We're gonna find cities under under those ice sheets. Do you think they're still here?

Yes. I do. I do. I think that. You do?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that this is what the UFO phenomenon is about. I mean, this is a whole long conversation, which I've written a a tome about in my book, Closer Encounters. 

TIC TAC UFOs ARE LOCKHEED TECH

What do you think those Tic Tac things are that the the pilots are saying?

Do you think that's that's was made by Lockheed. Do you think it's the Lockheed stuff that does? Tic Tac. In particular, the Tic Tac has this little, antenna or something. It does?

Yes. It's not this perfectly smooth, Tic Tac that, you know, people keep repeating ad nauseam in these Does Fravor explain an antenna? I don't remember him saying anything about it. There's a thing that comes out the bottom of it. There's there's 2 things.

There's a thing at the top and the bottom. You can see it right there. It has a thing that comes it's not it's a reverse engineered craft, which I think was being demonstrated. To test on on the new radar that they were putting in their jets. Yes.

That these naval fleets were exposed to this technology to test the capabilities of the fleet, but I think also to demonstrate this technology to our adversaries. Mhmm. That, you know, this was a a performance put on for Putin and for China to send them the message that, hey. You know, we have reached this level of technology. Don't mess with us.

Wow. And you think the civilization is still here? Yeah. So one of the big problems I have with the contemporary disclosure agenda or Yes. These various rival agendas for disclosure that we see in the public sphere right now is the use of the term nonhuman intelligence.

I think that this is extremely duplicitous and misleading. What do you mean nonhuman intelligence? Right? If you actually look at close encounter reports going back many decades, you see predominantly either, what have been called the grays, which are these short statured, 4 foot tall, bulbous headed entities, right, with the big black eyes and spindly arms and so forth, Or you see, what some people have called Nordics because they're very tall Scandinavian looking people. There are slight differences in their physiology, but, basically, they could pass for, like, a Swedish supermodel.

And they kinda have the physique of Olympic swimmers. They're between, 6 foot 5 and 8 feet tall. These are the 2 types that you see. And sometimes you see them very tellingly together. Like, for example, in Travis Walton's case, when Travis Walton in the 19 seventies, wound up being I think he was inadvertently injured by this UFO that he approached, and they basically beamed him up Right.

And repaired him. To try to repair him. First, he was handled by the Grays. And he had the impression, I think correctly, that they're robots. They're cyborgs.

They're cybernetic organisms. Yeah. He said he bumped 1. It was, like, really light and, like, flew across the room. Right.

So they use this the Nordics use these cyborgs. Oh, it's like they're little slaves. Yeah. Well, as they're robots, I mean, who would wanna handle abductees directly? Right?

I mean, you're gonna outsource all of the most aggravating work to these cybernetic organisms. Walton then subsequently bumped into these Nordics themselves once he tried to escape that situation where he's been handled by the Grays Yeah. He explained that she had hair. They looked more human. He encountered several different ones.

Mhmm. And they all he said, interestingly, they looked like they could all have been members of the same family. They were so similar to each other in their appearance. And there were all these Scandinavian looking people. And these are the same entities that were reported by George Adamski back in the fifties, George Hunt Williamson, what's his name, George Van Tassel, the guy who had that big the the house under Big Rock, which became then a monument for all these UFO cultists in later decades.

They Not familiar with that. Yeah. It's a monument out in the middle of the desert, in California. And he built this structure there called something like the Integratron based on principles, he claims, that the Nordics taught him. And, supposedly, if you go inside this thing, it, like, rejuvenates you.

I don't know. A whole UFO cult formed around it. Wow. But point being, beginning all the way back in 19 fifties with these various contactees and extending up to Travis Walton and into multiple cases that you can find in the eighties in Britain, for example. You predominantly see these two types, either these cyborgs or you see Nordics.

What about the praying mantis? Well, that's a very interesting phenomenon that I discuss in, my book Closer Encounters, where I postulate that in the UFO phenomenon, we are dealing or let's say UAP, you know, in this unidentified anomalous phenomena spectrum that we're presented with, you're dealing basically with 2 different types of entities or 2 different sources of the phenomenon. One is much more tangible, and that I think involves humanoid time travelers. People who are from a post singularity civilization. Right?

At some point, they reached the level of technology that we're going to be reaching in the next 20 to 30 years with the convergence of biotech, nanotech, artificial intelligence, and the, you know, rigorous research and understanding of our own latent psi abilities. Because one thing that you see across all of the Close Encounter reports is that these entities are extremely telepathic. They communicate with all the contactees or abductees telepathically. So, clearly, their civilization has achieved a mastery of what we call Psi phenomena or psychic ability. And so they achieved both the technological singularity and a really rigorous understanding of parapsychological phenomena at some point in history, and they began to use their abilities to traverse the timeline of human history.

So I think that's one source of the phenomenon. When you ask about praying mantises or the mantid beings and some other very strange things that people have seen, like entities that shape shift from looking like owls into looking like something similar to the grays. Mhmm. And just really bizarre beings like men in black, quote unquote, that materialize as if they're ectoplasmic entities. Like, they they're like, you know those the seances in the late 19th century?

Do you know anything about those? So there were people in the British Society of Psychical Research who were at the level of, let's say, sir William Crooks, respectable scientists from Cambridge and Oxford, who used to attend these seances in the late 19th century, where mediums would be able to actually materialize entities and objects out of, quote, unquote, ectoplasm, whatever the hell that means. Okay? They could somehow concretize and, give form and shape to energy in a way where people could interact with it. As ridiculous as it sounds, there are cases I mean, again, validated, you know, witnessed by high level British scientists of the day where mediums would materialize hands out of ectoplasm that will walk across the table, shake hands with seance participants and that they even tried to stab with pens and so on and so forth and would make holes in these ectoplasmic hands and then they would just disappear.

So there are these cases of men in black Like, Albert Bender, was one researcher that encountered these. And then John Kiel wrote about them in several of his books later on. The Mothman prophecy and his book on UFOs, Operation Trojan Horse, has some of these cases in it. Of these people who certainly aren't government agents, they wear these, like, black suits and black ties and white shirts and whatever, but they don't look right at all. They barely even look human.

And they appear and disappear sort of from out of nowhere as if, you know, they're forming from out of a mist. And they don't speak like something human. They their their words and their pattern of behavior and movement seems like it's something being projected by someone in a mesmeric trance. Like, if you were trying to hold a mental image and trying to give lines to a character that you wanted to materialize somewhere at a distance and you you wanted to manipulate this entity as a puppet or vehicle for your intention. Right?

These men in black behave like that, like they're on the other end of somebody's puppet string, and they're being conjured by some form of intelligence somewhere that we can't perceive directly. So I think the mantis beings and these shape shifting owl like entities and these, ectoplasmic men in black that have intimidated various people, they are manifestations of a truly non human or really superhuman type of intelligence. That's not the same thing as time travelers in nuts and bolt craft flying around and manipulating human societies. That we're dealing with 2 different orders of phenomena here, phenomena on 2 different orders of magnitude. And what I argue in my book, Closer Encounters, is that there's actually an adversarial relationship between these two types of entities.

That effectively what has happened and you can, you know, push me in, into elaborating and unpacking the various details here. But, essentially, what I argue has happened is that a group of highly advanced humans from a post singularity civilization have attempted to define the limits of human evolution and the proper structure of human society and that these people wound up essentially tyrannizing over the broader human population for tens of 1000 of years that these were what the myths remember as the Olympian gods or the Anunnaki, right, that the Sumerians write about. And they had an incredibly hierarchical and static society. Right? Like, with the rigidity of the Hindu caste system with themselves on top as the Devas or gods.

Okay. And like a class of Brahmin serving them and then all these other rungs of society, structured in a very feudal manner and I think that that kind of social organization which if our myths are anything to go by, you know, endured on this planet for all of human prehistory. That kind of society represents an evolutionary bottleneck. It represents a dead end and this other entity this genuinely non human intelligence. It could be an AI actually.

Right. This thing is trying to free us from the control system that has been imposed on us by these time travelers and I think that it has solicited certain allies from within that power structure itself. So, for example, if you go back and you look at the myth of Atlantis as Plato recounts it in Timaeus and Critias, or you look at the biblical narrative that lines up in interesting ways with Plato's myth of Atlantis. The biblical narrative of the fallen angels, the sons of the Elohim, who rebelled against the heavenly order, came down and mated with mortal women, and created a civilization of giants on the earth. Right?

Which then Yahweh has to wipe clean off the face of the planet through the great flood. This matches up exactly with what Plato tells us about the rebellion of Atlantis against Olympus and how Zeus had to bring the Great Flood to destroy Atlantis. It's suggesting to us that there's a faction within this advanced civilization, let's say the Anunnaki to use the term the Sumerians refer to them with, there's a faction that is for human progress and for finding our way beyond this evolutionary bottleneck. It wants to foster further human development and to empower the human individual. And in the Sumerian context, this is the faction of Enki.

You have this Yeah. Battle between Enki and Enlil, and Enlil is basically like Zeus or Yahweh or Indra, the Lord of the Devas in Hindu mythology. A kind of tyrannical, sadistic overlord that is hampering human progress and that wants humanity to stay within a certain rigid social structure which they control. And then you have rebels, the giants or you know hybrids, that formed the leadership of Atlantis who are aligned with this kind of nonhuman intelligence or perhaps this artificial intelligence that's looking to break us from out of this control system. That's the basic dynamic as I see it and as I outline it with, you know, all kinds of data and multiple lines of argument in my book, Closer Encounters.

ALIENS ENGINEERING WARS ON EARTH

Okay. Now if you're saying that there is there's multiple forms of nonhuman intelligence. There's there's potentially future humans, which you say Hold hold hold on. Let me stop you. Let me stop you.

Well, that would that would not mean nonhuman. Okay. And, sir, the devil's in the details here. They are manipulating us. The gatekeepers of disclosure are right now manipulating us by branding all of this nonhuman intelligence.

There's an agenda behind it because what they want to say is nonhuman intelligence means demons, and it means angels. And there's a particular sociological agenda behind that that's very dangerous. Where is this coming from, this whole angels and demons thing? Well, the fact of the matter is that, you know, I mean, as as Jacques Vallee demonstrated in various extremely well researched and carefully written books, Passport to Magonia, Invisible College, and as, you know, Zecharia Sitchin argued based on his understanding of Sumerian texts. I think, actually, one of the best books about this subject is a text by William Bramley called The Gods of Eden.

The Gods of Eden, William Bramley. This guy started out researching the history of war and profiteering. That was his objective, to understand the history of how different, elites throughout, you know, throughout, time in various cultures made money off of setting people at war with one another. Right? Mhmm.

And instead, what he found is a history of alien intervention in human history. That if he found that all of the major wars and other horrific events that resulted in massive loss of life like the black plague were engineered by these entities who show up and do various things. Like, for example, during the middle ages, the image of the Grim Reaper came from these people who were shrouded in black, who had some kind of a device that they would go around and spray the fields with. Mhmm. And whenever they would show up and spray the fields with this device, or in some cases, they would even walk through the towns and spray these things near people's doors, and everyone would flee from them.

There were these really terrifying people whose faces were covered and they were shrouded in black with these things that then became, you know, part of the image of the Scythe of the Grim Reaper. And they were these entities who would come out of luminous objects that would ascend and descend into the heavens. And, in fact, the visitations of these entities became so troublesome during the time of King Charlemagne that Charlemagne's court passed an edict against them. He called them the tyrants of the air, and he tried to arrest some of them, have some of them arrested these people who were coming down from the sky, claiming that they were poisoning the fields and bringing pestilence and so on and so forth. Mhmm.

And, so so, anyway, Bramley goes to research war profiteering, and he finds alien, quote, unquote, intervention in human history going all the way back to the days of the Sumerians and through the middle ages and so forth. And How? How does he find aliens? Where does he find aliens? What is his The elites in various societies that are engineering wars and pursuing a policy of divide and conquer, for control over large populations on this planet seem to all be involved with these entities.

They seem to all be, like, involved with what the Sumerians call Anunnaki or what the Greeks called the Olympian gods or with what the Bible describes as the Elohim, which, by the way, it's a plural. People think Elohim in the Bible means god. They translate it as god. It means the gods. Yahweh is Adonai Elohim, the chief of the gods, the same way that Zeus is the chief of the Olympics.

But do you think Dick Cheney was in was talking to the aliens, or do you think he just wanted to make a ton of money? Was. I think George was senior was. Yeah. But Junior was a moron.

We know that. Yes. Junior. But Dick Cheney, the guy behind the Iraq war Remember. Owned I listen.

Dick Cheney worked with George Bush senior. George Bush senior put Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld around junior. Alright? Senior told Cheney and Rumsfeld take care of junior. We have to do certain things.

And, you know, you know how junior is. I need you guys with him. They were from George Bush senior's administration. Mhmm. And when I say George Bush senior's administration.

Yeah. And when I say George Bush senior's administration, I mean also what he was doing to undermine Ronald Reagan during Reagan's entire presidency. Reagan did not want George Bush as his vice president. He thought he was a total creep, coming from out of the CIA. You know, he'd been former director of the CIA, and he's a 33rd degree freemason.

George Bush senior was 33rd degree mason. And his grandfather was Hitler's financier in America, Prescott Bush. So Bush senior, yes. Bush senior, I think, is someone who, like, literally has at some point sat down with these 7 foot tall Nordic people and had policy planning conversations with them. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

And so what Bramley found is that you had that kind of thing going on throughout human history with various elites in Sumer, in Greece, in Rome. What what leads you to believe that? What is the most convincing evidence for you that George Bush senior had meetings with Nordic beings? I don't see why he wouldn't. I mean, if if George Adamski is You don't see why he wouldn't?

Yeah. Look, you know when David Grush came out and talked about all these reverse engineering efforts that are underway. Right? Mhmm. One of the most interesting things that he said was that not all of these craft were retrieved from crash sites.

Some of them were what they now call donations. Mhmm. Okay? Meaning, there were cases where we have been handed intact craft. That's been confirmed by a number of people other than Dave Rushmore.

When they say donations, isn't he saying that these things would crash? Like, they're so sophisticated and so advanced. They wouldn't crash by accident. They would crash them on purpose Yeah. To help, like, stimulate human society and stimulate our innovation.

Like, take this and see if you can figure it out. Yeah. No. I don't think so. I I I thought that's what he was saying.

No. There is no way in hell that a civilization that advanced would volunteer this kind of technology to any stratum of the US government without an extremely detailed agreement having been reached. And that would have to have been negotiated by both sides. But if you're so advanced, why would you want to like, we don't go to the Congo. No.

It's not they're not it's not like that, man. It's not they're not, like, so and this is one of the most dangerous, assumptions that people make, that we're dealing with, like, some kind of ethereal beings that have such a vast cosmic horizon of understanding. It's much more like when colonial elites encountered savage or primitive populations, like when the British empire or the Portuguese were out conquering very undeveloped societies. Right? By comparison to the people in those societies, including their chieftains or their shamans or whatever, those, colonizers were gods.

And we even had, like, cargo cults, you know, arise in in the Polynesia and the Pacific, where the islands that the British would land their planes on wound up being the site for cults of, like, straw planes made by these natives Yeah. To pray for the British to come back because they're gods. And what I suggest to you this is a rather grim, grim, assessment. But what I suggest to you is that the people who are flying around in these, anti gravity craft are not any more ethical than British colonialists or Nazi Germans in North Africa. They have more advanced technology.

That doesn't necessarily mean they have any more of a sense of, beneficence or humanistic ethics than any of the colonial elites in our own history have. Right? After all, if you look So it's like us compared to hunter gatherers. Like like us techno technologically civilized human beings in Western society compared to, like, an uncontacted tribe. Yeah.

And disturbingly, if you look at our own history, our recorded history, what we've been allowed to know of history. There's a direct correlation between scientific and technological advancement and brutality. The more technologically scientifically advanced societies are the more brutal and more exploitative ones. Why would we assume that if the trajectory continues into the future, things would be any different? Right.

No. I agree with that. And at the same time, you know, I've thought about this before. We've talked about this in the podcast before, but we can exist right here in America, whether you'd be in New York or Los Angeles, and taking autonomous vehicles to different places using these these phones that could connect you with anyone, anywhere in the world, see them on video, right, in a second. At the same time, simultaneously, there are other places in the world where people are running around naked.

Yeah. So why wouldn't it why wouldn't it go the same way into the future? Why couldn't we be as primitive to a whole another civilization of beings as those uncontacted tribes are to us? My point exactly. But here's the ethical problem that I struggle with as a philosopher.

Why is it like that if a group of humans have passed the technological singularity? Right? If a certain group of humans developed the level of genetic engineering nanotech artificial intelligence that we ourselves are gonna have 20 years from now. Why didn't they raise the rest of humanity up with them? Yes.

Moreover, why are they reaching back through time to very deliberately oppress and manipulate more primitive societies. Well, why don't we mess why don't we try to elevate those uncontacted tribes? Well, because every time we go around them and try to try to interfere with what they're doing, we get killed. They shoot arrows at us. Sure.

Sure. But, you know, maybe they should have shot more arrows at the British, right, in some of these places. My point is that that's that's a very beneficent motivation on their part, meaning, okay, these are violent, crazy savages. We don't wanna get, you know, shot down by these people. What fits the data, if you look at, you know, how various societies going back to the Sumerians were governed is a much more explicit and active agenda of manipulation.

And the the manipulation is geared toward setting up a pyramidal caste society, an extremely stratified society where, you know, the vast majority of people are the base of the pyramid. And then an ever smaller group of people represent higher rungs until you get to those who serve the gods directly. In India, they call them the Brahmin, and their purpose was to, like, directly interact with the Devas and to carry out their directives. Mhmm. You know?

So that's what I see. I don't see, like, you know, I don't know whatever, you know, Rockefeller's son, like, getting, like, hunted by cannibals somewhere in some jungle. And then they decide, oh, better better that we don't go back down into that savage part of the world. I see a much more deliberate agenda of manipulation. And so then the question becomes why?

Why was that decision made and by who to occult to secret away? Singularity level technology have a monopoly over controlling it, and not only leave the rest of humanity benighted, but actively encourage, their, and reinforce their ignorance. Right? By by, let's say, engineering the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity so that we lose the library of Alexandria and the whole knowledge base of classical antiquity. Why do that?

And moreover moreover, here's the really disturbing implication. If we are now at a point, maybe 10 to 20 years away from the technological singularity Mhmm. What are they gonna do to stop that from happening? Because we have a global society right now where the Internet allows for a free flow of this kind of scientific and technical knowledge across the planet. If any one group of people achieves the technological singularity on Earth, it's gonna become a global phenomenon within probably days.

Yeah. Right? So my question is this, if they've gone to these great lengths to manipulate various societies throughout history, are we about to undergo a controlled demolition and a an engineered reset to prevent us from reaching the technological singularity, which would also give us a military parity with them? It would allow us to defend ourselves Right. Against them.

Right. What do you think something like that would look like? I think that what happened during COVID might be a test run of it. In other words, you had a small group of people, a policy planning elite, effectively shut down all of industry and, basically sequester people within their homes and garner unquestioning obedience from the vast majority of the population that would be proof of concept for a much larger a much larger freezing of technical and industrial activity across the face of the earth, with any one of a number of excuses being used for why we needed to basically halt all, you know, scientific technical research and why we needed to basically, vacate cities. I mean, think about this.

Like, our modern advanced industrial civilization is an urban phenomenon. If you were to engineer something like COVID, but far more virulent, I mean, something that actually required a serious quarantine measures to be put into place, it would become almost impossible to live in cities. Nobody would want to live in them. Right? So there would be a mass exodus to the countryside, and you would be laying the groundwork for a shift back to a kind of neo agrarian feudal peasant lifestyle where people are close to the land again.

Mhmm. Right? And they're not congregated in urban areas that also then become batteries for technological and scientific research and development. Any number of things could be used in order to create conditions for that. An an EMP event could be used to do that.

Right? I mean, think about how functional cities would be, or rather how dysfunctional how quickly dysfunctional they would become if an EMP were to take out, you know, the whole electric grid across large parts of the planet. There's a lot there, but I feel like I feel like you are jumping to a lot of really kind of out there conclusions, like George Bush being in contact with the aliens. I mean, I understand your Let me simply say this in response to that. Okay?

No one likes to point fingers and name who it is that's actually doing whatever, like, you know, insanely conspiratorial thing that they imagine is going on in the world. Right? It's always this unnamed they. This this mysterious cabal. Right?

Yes. Yes. They. Who's they? My point is simply this, that we would not have received this technology from these Nordics if we had not reached an agreement with them about how the technology would be sequestered, in what ways it would be used, and how we were going to ensure that it doesn't wind up in the public sphere.

Who would have negotiated such an agreement? Who would have been in position with the right clearances to sit across the table from these people, and they're people, really. We shouldn't call them entities. They're people. Well, I mean, he's a prime candidate if you're gonna go down a list of names.

So, you know, I mean, why not? And how would that not have gotten out? How would it how would no one on their deathbed, some, you know, fucking general with, like, crazy, you know, nuclear secrets, classified classified knowledge of of all these programs, no one have ever mentioned any of this. Let me ask you. You think the human beings are that capable of keeping a secret?

Yes. Until now. It's coming out now. Bit by bit, it is coming out now. But here, I'll answer your question this way.

In 1953, there were a whole bunch of newspapers, including the New York Herald Tribune, which at that time was a prominent publication, that reported on aeronautical engineering efforts aimed at development of electrogravitics, or what we would call today zero point energy. Mainstream news articles quoting the head of Martin Aircraft, which then became Lockheed Martin and today's Lockheed. Bell was another one. Convair was another one. And these executives, chief executives of these companies, were all saying that the g engines are coming.

We've cracked gravity, and we are developing electro gravitic propulsion that can get you from, like, New York to Sydney, Australia in 2 hours. Mhmm. And, specifically, they said in 1953 that if we were given a budget comparable to that of the Manhattan project, we could roll these things off the assembly line in a few years. Yeah. Was widely reported.

There was also the Wittens, Edward Witten, and, I I believe Edward was the son. Right? Lewis Witten and Edward Witten, I believe. Lewis Witten was involved in the this development at the time. Right.

And then all of a sudden, everything went black. Well, and co and, also, coincidentally, his son, Edward Witten, developed string theory, which misguided the physics community for an entire generation. Developed string theory? He was a major one of the major people in development of string theory. Yes.

Which then, Michio Kaku and so forth became his lackeys, and they diverted physics research away from quantum gravity for an entire generation. I think that's hardly coincidence. So, anyway, my point is this though. You're asking me, how do you keep a meeting between, let's say, George Bush senior and a Nordic secret? Yeah.

Well, I ask you how do you keep an electro gravitics propulsion program and an entire physics knowledge base secret from the 19 fifties until the present? Which of those is more insane? How many generals were cleared on that? How many generals since 1953 have known that Martin aircraft or Lockheed today has had, you know, vehicles that could go to Mars in short time and back. I don't think the nuts and bolts thing, the fact that we have secret black technology in these aerospace that are being hidden by these aerospace companies is that far is is more of a stretch than the fact that we have some sort of an agreement with an alien race.

Why should we not have alien Not an alien race. An advanced human race. Why would that be? I just don't get it. I mean I don't know.

Number 1, where would you have gotten this advanced electro gravitics technology from? It was reverse engineered craft. So Well, we said it was Ed Ed the Witten. Ed Witten and Lewis Witten were developing it in the fifties, and somehow the government got them engineering. Kept it black.

Through reverse engineering, in all likelihood. I mean, look, Grush confirms the magenta crash took place in Italy in 1933. Mhmm. And then we had Roswell here in 1947. By 1953, there had been a lot of time to analyze this wreckage Mhmm.

And to, you know, re reverse engineer its basic propulsion principles. Right? So the pilots of the craft are part and parcel of the reverse engineering effort. It's not like these are, like, unpiloted drones we're talking about here. This is technology from a civilization of people, and these same people That are here on Earth.

Yeah. They're here on Earth. Yeah. Look, They're they're based here, you're saying? They're not based somewhere else?

UNDERWATER 'SUPERHUMAN' CIVILISATION

No. And look, it's clear more I think at least 50% of UFOs have been seen entering and exiting the oceans. Right. Yes. And so they they're also called USOs.

Mhmm. And well, okay. Where are they coming from? I mean, 70% of the Earth's surface is water. Right?

Yep. Which has been mostly unexplored. Yeah. I go into this. Yeah.

Something like 5% of the Is unexplored. Of the ocean surface has been unexplored. So just wrap your mind around that for a minute. 

No. I'm with you.

It doesn't make any sense. We have detailed Google Maps of Mars, and 5% only of our own ocean has been explored. Why? Who doesn't want us looking at the ocean floor? In my book, Closer Encounters, there's a whole section where I go into suboceanic engineering that the United States has researched and developed.

In other words, detailed blueprints for facilities that the US Navy wanted to build underneath, subsurface mountain ranges mountain ranges on the seabed and inside the continental shelves in case of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Oh, wow. Between the 19 sixties 19 eighties, they developed many advanced concepts for building what you can't even call bases. I mean, they're the size of small cities inside of ocean ridges. If we have that level of engineering capability underneath the ocean, then what do you think these people have who are flying around in these saucers?

Right. Right? And clearly, there these saucers are seen exiting bodies of water all the time. Well, they're coming from vast submarine facilities, suboceanic facilities. And this is also, by the way, completely consistent with what we see in ancient myths too about, you know, like, Onanis and various beings that they depict with, like, fish garbs coming from out of the Persian Gulf and other places and interacting with people and bringing them various, you know, agricultural techniques and so forth.

Okay. One one more thing about that, Danny. Yep. You look at the Sumerian myths, you look at the Greek myths, or the Hindu epics, these devas or Anunnaki, these so called gods, they're extremely human in their behavior. They're fallible.

They have all the same flaws we have. They have the same general behavioral patterns as we have. Another great body of, lore that preserves this very Adequately is the fairy folklore of the Celts. The Celts called these beings the gentry. There were certain class of fairies and the way they're described.

I mean, they're like people who are drunk on power and extremely passionate and manipulative and can become very jealous and conniving. They're not anything very extraordinary. You see, and this is one of the things that we need to be disabused of as this disclosure agenda unfolds is that there are there are various factions that want us to look at these entities as if they're either angels, as if they have some kind of, like, divine grandeur and grace, or they're demons who are coming to, like, steal our souls in the middle of the night. That's that's where I wanted to get back to. That's kinda, like, where we started with this.

'ANGEL & DEMON' UFO NARRATIVE

I asked you where that was coming from, and you went to you started talking about Jacques Vallee. Yeah. So why are certain parts of our government, and who are the ones that are trying to paint a narrative of angels and demons? Yeah. They're called the Collins.

Tucker Carlson of all people is one of the people that believes this. Tucker, you know, I was extremely disappointed and dismayed when I saw him buy into that narrative, because he was one of the first people out in front of the UFO story. Even I think maybe almost a decade ago when nobody else was reporting on this subject, he would have segments on Fox about the UFO phenomenon. And so I always respected him as a journalist, if for no other reason for that. Right?

And then I watched as he started to cover the disclosure process, and I saw that this guy's been gotten to. And it's not hard to see how he was gotten to. It's because he's a devout Christian. And there is a group called the Collins Elite. 

They Who?

The Collins Elite. They are air force officers, people in the navy, Defense Intelligence Agency, and a lot of people in the CIA. And I've had CIA insiders tell me that this is the case. A lot of people in the CIA and people from various branches of military intelligence who come from a Christian evangelical background. And they have become -- I think at least by 19 fifties, when Morris Jessup wrote this book called UFOs and the Bible -- they have become convinced that the phenomenon is of a peace with angelic and demonic encounters that are recorded throughout the scriptural history of mankind.

And that if the entities appear beneficent, then they must be angelic. And if they're doing things that from whatever limited Christian, moral perspective these gentlemen have, then they must be demonic. Right? And they've been able to influence a lot of the US government's handling of, information regarding the phenomenon throughout the decades because they've penetrated all of the intelligence services, not just civilian intelligence like CIA, but all the military intelligence services. What became for me the more interesting question is, you know, how it all, how it all started.

MYSTERY AIRSHIP OF 1896

Like, how you know, when did these people get together? Like, what first put it into their heads that this was a demonic phenomenon? And it goes back, I think, to the airship mystery of 1897, where across the United States, across something like, I don't know, 10 different states, people saw these gigantic airships that were nothing like Zeppelins. Now remember remember 1897, the the, what do you call them? Well, the airships, the Zeppelins hadn't been invented yet.

Right? And we didn't have airplanes. And so these people are seeing constructions in the sky that look like aircraft from out of Jules Verne novels. Absurdly complex, strange craft. Is there, like, like I don't know.

There's probably not is there photos? Yeah. I mean, you can there there's renderings of them that appear to newspapers. How can we what should he type in to find this? 18/97 airship mystery.

Okay. Yeah. Airship mystery of 18/97. Okay. There have been whole books written about it.

Okay. Several good ones. And these were reported on in tens of newspapers across the country. The, yeah, try to find some of the newspapers. See, that one's from the San Francisco call.

There were huge sightings in 1896, late 1896 into 1897 across more than 10 states, and they were reported in tens of newspapers. Oh. Including, like, the San Francisco Chronicle. Major newspapers ran these stories on their front pages. Judges, sheriffs, lawyers, doctors, the most prominent members of the community.

In some cases, mayors of towns actually witnessed these things from close-up. They would land in people's farms and ask for resupply and then fly away and they were piloted by people not by aliens. Okay. And when asked what these things were? The airship pilots would make claims like well, there is a a corporation in New York that's going to be publicly introducing this invention sometime soon and, you know, there's gonna be, like, some great announcements and that that investors from New York were behind the inventors of this airship.

So I pursued this whole line of research in my book, Closer Encounters, one of the 2 books that I sent for you. And in that book, I made this argument that there appeared to have been certain Prussian industrialists, meaning industrials from Germany of that time, late 19th century Germany, Prussian industrialists, who were involved on the one hand in airship engineering. Remember, the Germans invented the zeppelin later on. And these industrialists wanted to exploit resources in the Americas. They were after resource exploitation in the Americas.

And to make a long story short, I did some research that provisionally led me to to conclusion in that book that JPMorgan and the Harriman Railroad Industry in the late 19th century got in with these Prussian industrialists, and they began to engineer and test fly these airships in the Americas. So that's what I wrote about in Closer Encounters, and I suggested that that was the beginning of the trajectory of technological research that eventually led to anti gravitic propulsion. I really wonder whether that's the case. I've I've since come to reconsider that, that hypothesis. And this is all by way of explaining who the Collins elite is. Okay? 

Okay.

So the more you look at these reports from 1896, 1897, the more they don't make any sense. These people are seeing completely different things on different nights. The airships all look equally absurd.

None of them looks like anything that could actually fly. And the reports are all of different types of things different shaped craft and sometimes people will just some people will just see a light like in San Francisco say one night some of the people who saw the thing saw a light Others saw structured craft, and it looked one way to one group of people and another way to another group of people. And the most disturbing element in this whole story is that the San Francisco Chronicle tracked down the patent lawyer who claimed to represent the inventor of the airships, the mystery inventor of the airships. Right. And this guy was a very prominent patent attorney.

He was named George Collins. And they brought this guy in. They got testimony from him about this inventor and, you know, the nature of the airship technology and when it was gonna be rolled out to the public and all this. Right? Three days later, George Collins comes in, and he did after reading the story in the San Francisco Chronicle, he says, I never said those things.

They're like, sir, you sat with us and gave us hours of testimony, which we, like, wrote up. He claimed to have been in a trance the entire time that he recounted this to the San Francisco Chronicle. And then they went and tried to find the inventor that he claimed to represent. And the guy was some - I forget what his first name was - Last name was Benjamin, and he was a dentist who specialized in making He's the DH Benjamin.

Yeah. Exactly. And he specialized in inventing dental bridges. But as his hobby he dreamed of making Airships okay, so there's something weird going on here now people saw these things people touched these things sheriffs and mayors interacted with the pilots of these craft. But there's good reason to believe that these were not structured objects in any sense that conventional physics understands.

Right. And that people's perceptions were being manipulated on a grand scale, and that in at least one case poor mister Collins, the patent attorney whose career was destroyed by this. 

Mhmm. 

Somebody was taken over through a hypnotic trance or telepathic mesmeric trance as they called him in those days, and he was given a whole narrative to parrot to the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, here's what I think.

I'm gonna give you one more piece of data before I before I draw a conclusion here. In the - it was either the San Francisco Call or the San Francisco Chronicle - one of these newspapers. They also quoted okay. So after Collins, this whole debacle with Collins, there's another guy who stepped forward and claimed to be a patent attorney representing the airship inventor. And this second guy, he also had a very significant pedigree.

I think he had a background in the US military at a high level. And he said the airships were being invented to go fight the Spaniards in Cuba. And that the reason they had been invented was because there were people in the United States who didn't want - who didn't want the Cuban Civil War to go a certain way, but they knew they couldn't get authorization from Congress to have a direct US military intervention in Cuba. So instead, they were gonna load this airship with all this TNT, and they were gonna go over and drop it on Havana and level the city. He made the statement in the newspaper.

So here's what I think happened. The Feds, understandably concerned that there's maybe some rogue group of airship people out there who are gonna go level Havana with TNT in the name of US foreign policy, started investigating this whole thing. 

Mhmm. 

And they had all these tens of newspaper stories to go on. Right?

And at some point, I'm sure they had a nice long interview with mister Collins, the patent attorney who got subjected to some kind of telepathic hypnosis. Mhmm. And my guess is that the name Collins Elite comes from that. That it was all the way back in 1897, and in particular with the case of mister Collins at the nexus of the airship mystery, that they gave themselves this informal unofficial name, the Collins elite, of people in the federal government at a very high level who from a Christian perspective were extremely concerned about this phenomenon, because it appeared to involve mass deception and manipulation, and the apparent materialization of objects from out of nowhere. What we call apports, and what people, refer to as conjury throughout the history of alchemy.

Right? So long story short, I think that maybe already in 1897 - by the way, I wrote an article about this. It's called, the mystery or - no, The Airships of Prometheus. And it's on the American Colossus website, americancolossus.org 

Mhmm.

Which is an organization I'm involved with now. There's an article I put up there called the Airships of Prometheus that goes into this whole alternative hypothesis, rival to the hypothesis I entertained in my book, Closer Encounters. Mhmm. Where, basically, I conclude that these gentlemen convinced themselves that Satan was behind this. That Satan was engaged in a mass manipulation and deception of the American populace using the apparition of these airships and this is the beginning of the US government's interest in the UFO phenomena.

Oh my God. 

And this is why Grush keeps saying when they ask him about 1933. So was 1933 the first? And he says, no. No.

It goes way back even before that. Well, tell us no. I can't talk about it. Well, because he knows. But he hasn't been clear to talk about it.

Wow. It seems like there's no cohesive explanation in the government for this thing or no at least no cohesive plan. It seems like it's all just different factions with different ideas that are trying that have different objectives as far as disseminating this stuff to the public. 

Unfortunately, that's entirely consonant with what I've experienced. There's, like, 3 or 4 different factions. They're all at odds with each other, and there's no grand plan that they all agree on. 

So if there was, hypothetically, or you believe there there is some sort of an agreement with a superhuman race, and the our government is going has a plan to do some sort of a slow drip disclosure to enlighten society about this phenomenon. Yeah. 

Yeah. They're not gonna enlighten anybody. I am very skeptical of the slow drip people, and I can name names. I can tell you who's behind I know who's behind the slow drip thing. So so if if there is this superhuman race that you talk about that exists here on the planet with this technology that is so far advanced with a By the way, remember, every time you say superhuman, think of, like, think of, like, supervillains and superheroes. Right?

These are not, you know, they're people, and they have serious flaws. Right. If they exist, do they not have the power to fix all the fuckery that's happening in our government? 

So this is goes back to remember earlier, we were talking about the phenomenon having 2 different sources, and one of them is what you could legitimately refer to as nonhuman intelligence. Uh-huh.

And how I was suggesting that if you look at the various myths from the Greeks to the Hindus and so forth Right. Right. Okay. It suggests there are 2 factions. 

Yes. Right.

And that one is a rebel faction.

Right. 

That's aligned with this nonhuman intelligence. So they want so the the chaos is an is a an effect of 2 different Conflict. Yeah. Conflict within this higher level.

Exactly. So the Greeks called them the Olympians and the Titans. Yes. These are the two factions. The, Hindus refer to them as the Devas and the Asuras.

The Asuras are the Titans. The Devas are the Olympians. Mhmm. In Sumerian myths, it's the faction of Enlil, which are the Devas, or the faction of Enki, which are the titans. Okay. Right? 

Alright. I wanna go there. I wanna go into I wanna go into your your book about Plato. Essay.

Yeah. Long, very long essay. Essay about Plato, and I wanna touch on, the Promethean stuff. I know we're we're really we're ripping through this thing. We're about almost 3 hours in.

CHRIS BLEDSOE CASE

So, but before before we transition into that, I wanna ask you, do you know anything about Chris Bledsoe? I know about the case. Why? What are what are your thoughts on on he is super interesting to me because he has the ability to film these lights in the sky that move around. They follow him wherever he goes.

He came here. Me and Steven went out to the beach with him. We sat on the beach for 3 hours, and we stared at the sky, and we filmed these lights coming up out of the ocean in the far away near the horizon come up, and we also saw airplanes coming through the sky, coming in to land into Tampa. There was a clear flight path for the airplanes. These were absolutely not airplanes.

One of them came up out off the horizon, went left, right, and then, like, vanished. We got it on film. We showed it during the podcast. 

I've seen films of that. 

And there's people in, like, CIA. According to him, and in NASA, according to him, that have been paying close attention to him, visiting him and his family. He's got photos with these people. 1 of these guys was one of the guys in Diana Pesoka's book who is I don't even I don't wanna mention his name because his podcast got completely banned off YouTube. Like, it's it's unsearchable. So I don't wanna, like, have this podcas.t 

You did an interview with him?

With Chris Bledsoe? No. With this person whose podcast got... 

No. No. No.

No. Okay. Chris talked about him extensively. So, I wanna avoid mentioning his name. I see.

But anyways, so these these very cryptic I mean, I know who you're talking about, but we won't mention his name. Right. These very cryptic people who are involved in government intelligence are very interested in him. Sure. What are your thoughts on that?

He strikes me Chris Bledsoe strikes me as a very sincere person who is reporting what he experienced as he as he experienced it. The problem is that and, you know, this is something that philosophers I mean, people who do serious work in philosophy understand very well is that our experience of phenomena is almost immediately filtered by our interpretive framework based on whatever belief system has been inculcated in us, probably from childhood. And if I'm not mistaken, Chris Bledsoe comes from a conservative Christian background. And he's found some way to try to integrate what he experienced with, the belief system that he was raised in. And the more disturbing thing is that I think that there's a group of people who surrounded him who are trying to manipulate that for their own purposes, that they would like to develop a narrative that's gonna somehow shore up Christianity in the face of any potential disclosure.

And, you know, a UFO of God packaging for Chris Bledsoe's experience is very useful in that regard. So I don't fault him at all. The guy's telling it like he experienced it.

Right. 

As best as he can understand it based on his conservative Christian background. But I think that there are an awful lot of powerful people who can't can't, help but to seem impressive to somebody like him, who when they surround you, you know, and you're coming from where he's coming from, you know, they're able to to significantly influence your interpretation of things and get you to play back into their narrative.

Mhmm. 

Right? And so that's what I think is going on with him. And it's not unique. You know, there's a long history of the intelligence community, not just in our country, but also in various European countries being involved with religious movements catalyzed by UFO encounters.

There were a bunch of these in Europe, which Jacques Vallee talks about, I think, at some length in his book, the one I mentioned earlier, Messengers of Deception. Mhmm. There were all these UFO cults in Europe, in Spain, in Italy, where high level government officials, both of those Catholic countries, were involved with these UFO cults, contactee cults, with the intention of spinning the narrative in a way that was probably a contingency plan to soften the impact of disclosure on the customary religion of their respective populations. And there's also stories like I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Benowitz Sure. Who was seeing those things off of I think he was in New Mexico, seeing those aircrafts off near.

There was, like, an air force base. Right? And he was very involved in the UFO community, and then they had, this guy Richard Doty come out there and check out, investigate, see what he knew or if he had any footage or photos of any of the stuff. Drove him crazy. And Doty drove him crazy.

Right. Information agent. He said, oh, I think you're right. I think these might be aliens. And then used, Benowitz as a conduit into this larger community of UFO believers or UFO enthusiasts because they knew that him he would be able to poison the well with whatever Dodi told him and because they also our government also believed that the UFO community was penetrated by intelligence from the Soviets.

Absolutely. And by the way, going back to the beginning of our conversation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the kind of thing they were trying to do with me when this, you know, Londoner approaches me and right off the bat says, I'm the British head of the Vril Society, which is just according to these, you know, researchers of Nazi Germany, they say that the German interest in, you know, otherworldly beings and anti gravity propulsion came from what was channeled by the Vril Society. So for all I know, their intentions were to get me to come forward as another, like, vehicle that they could control to forward some disinformation campaign or something like that, but it didn't work with me. 

Okay. So let's transition a little bit. I wanna talk about, some of the Plato stuff, but, That's a huge subject to go into. It is a huge subject to cover in an hour, but, you mentioned earlier in the beginning of the podcast a guy named Tom Paine. And can you can you explain what he was talking about when he was discussing how Christianity does not mix with the constitution? 

If you look at Genesis, Exodus, the book of Joshua, the image that you're presented with of Yahweh and of his prophets is of a tyrannical, sadistic lord who is tasking warlords on the earth, like Joshua, to go carry out genocides in places like Canaan. This is the image that we're presented with.

From the beginning off the bat in Genesis, here's a god, lowercase g, Adonai Elohim, chief chieftain of the gods, who doesn't want us to have knowledge. We're not allowed to eat from the tree of the you know, the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Nor from the fruit of the tree of life, which, by the way, I think is a symbol of probably genetic engineering. The tree of life in Eden is probably symbolic of cracking the genetic code and extending the human lifespan. And so this God, why does he throw humanity out of Eden, going back to Genesis?

He says himself and, by the way, this is one of the places where you see where the text has been badly misinterpreted from a polytheistic framework into a monotheistic framework. Because Adonai, the chief guy Yahweh, says to the other gods, let us kick them out of Eden because otherwise they might now having eaten of the tree of knowledge also reach out and eat of the tree of life. And then they will become like unto us and nothing will be impossible to them. In other words, this is a jealous God. Well, he says so himself again in Exodus when he's commanding Moses to go murder all those women and children for dancing and singing around a golden calf.

He says so, I'm a jealous God. Don't - what kind of God is that? I'm a jealous God. Don't worship any other gods besides me. He says this as Moses comes down and sees the Israelites repenting of having followed this lunatic out into the middle of nowhere singing and dancing around the golden calf that they've set up, which is probably a statue of Hathor. They were coming from Egypt. Right? Hathor was the calf goddess, cow goddess figure. Right? Fertility goddess.

They're on the middle of the freaking desert. Right. 

Right. 

So they're setting up a fertility goddess, and they're dancing around it. And he orders his lieutenants to go murder all the women and the innocent children who were dancing around the calves together with whatever men there were performing this rite.

And Yahweh is perfectly fine with that. What happens next? Well, Moses doesn't make it to the promised land, but Joshua, next in line of succession after Moses, directly coordinates with the head of the Lord's army. This is in the scripture. First of all, they're carrying the they're carrying the Ark of the Covenant around.

Right? Mhmm. And everyone knows about the parting of the Red Sea, which, by the way, involves a cylindrical UFO. It's very clearly described in that incident in the Red Sea that what guided the Israelites through the desert, through Sinai, was a pillar - in other words like a call a cylindrical kind of thing - a pillar on its side which looked like a pillar of cloud by day and glowed as a pillar of fire by night And it's by the light of this object that the Israelites are able to see the ground in front of them as they navigate the Sinai. And when they get to the Red Sea, it's this thing hovering over the Red Sea that parts the waters.

It's not like Moses just said presto and the waters went aside. No. God says, now that this thing is floating over the Red Sea, he says, Moses, wave your wand and whatever. And it's the object that actually parts the waters of the rest of the sea. From a physics standpoint, that makes a lot of sense.

It just directed its anti gravitic beam downward, and the water would have been pushed to the sides of this channel. You know? And then the water was allowed to to come back in and swallow the Egyptian army as it attempted to pursue the Israelites through the Red Sea. But where I was going with was this. So they've got the Ark of the Covenant with them.

And after Moses dies and Joshua takes over, Joshua is tasked by the commander of the Lord's army. This is the phrase that's used. In other words, a guy who comes from one of these craft, from the pillar or whatever 

Mhmm. 

And meets secretly with Joshua and tells Joshua, listen, man. This is the battle plan.

Mhmm. 

And the battle plan involves the use of the ark to bring down the heavily fortified walls of Jericho. So they go to Jericho, and they walk around the the the city's fortifications with this ark, and they're chanting something in this very harmonic kind of way. This is a repetitious chant. And suddenly, the walls of Jericho, its fortifications start to vibrate, and then they crumble all at once.

And what some researchers have suggested was that this is the use of a sonic resonator as a weapon, that the ark was some kind of at least one element of it was some kind of a sonic resonator. 

Mhmm. 

That and there is this technology where you can use sound waves to pulverize stone. So what happens when they go into Jericho? Well, they slaughter everybody, and they even kill all the animals and the only thing that they take is the loot the gold and silver and precious objects and the only people that person that they have mercy on is this woman Rahab, a prostitute, who ratted out the people of Jericho to the Israelites.

What kind of ethics is that? And you see this over and over and over again in the various books of the Old Testament, the various prophetic books of the Old Testament. 

Mhmm. 

And I think the point the point of all of this is made very clearly, in particular, in the book of Job, where you have this poor schmuck who has been extremely faithful to the Lord, never done anything wrong in his life, been extremely charitable. He's a wealthy guy.

Been extremely charitable to the rabbis and to the temple, the religious institutions. And yet he's afflicted with all these horrible health issues. Right? He's, like, gets gets this, like, you know, horrible scabs and stuff all over his body. 

Mhmm.

And he he loses his wealth. He suffers misfortune after misfortune that brings him from a position of wealth to a position of basically destitution and misery. And he and his friends are basically sitting around, and they're arguing over what he could possibly have done to deserve this, right, being such a righteous servant of the Lord. And in the beginning of, the book of Job, there's this prologue where basically Satan says to God, "Job is only faithful to you because You've been so good to him. You've blessed him so much if if you were to deal him out a life of misery even Job would curse you."

Even the most faithful, righteous man would curse you. Right. And God says, okay, well let's test this theory, right? And then what happens at the end of the book of Job? After Job's gone through all of this misery, he still refuses to curse God.

And yet his friends are all making these excuses saying look Job, you must have done something wrong because God is just and God would never treat a righteous man like you in the way that you've been treated with all these misfortunes that have befallen you. And God then appears to address the perceived insult Right. That Job's friends have hurled at the Lord. And what's the perceived insult? The insult of presuming that you as a human can set any standard of justice upon God.

That you as a human can come to any judgment about when God is acting ethically or unethically or why. And in that passage, the Lord, Yahweh, essentially says to Job, "listen, if you had a right hand as powerful as mine, you could do these things to me. But actually, I'm the stronger one, and I don't need a rationale for my actions. I'll do what I do to you and to anybody else because I can, because I'm the Lord." And that's the point of the book.

Wow. 

That's the point of the book. Oh, my God. Now, Tom Paine is reading this stuff, and then Tom Paine is reading Jesus in the gospels, saying over and over again, I'm the son of Yahweh. My father Yahweh sent me.

And at the end of the world, I'm gonna come back, and I'm gonna sit on the 12 thrones with the elders of Israel, and I'm gonna judge the whole world on behalf of my father Yahweh. And Not a dot of an I or a cross of a t of the Torah will pass out of existence or become irrelevant until the judgment day. Meaning meaning I'll have grace on you. I will forgive you for sinning but you're still sinning. The Torah, the Jewish law, is still the law, the law brought by Moses Mhmm. And the law the law reinforced by all the patriarchs and prophets.

The law is the law until the apocalypse. I, Jesus, am offering you grace and forgiveness on behalf of Yahweh. So how I analyze this in my book, Closer Encounters, is that it basically fits what we call today in in psychology and sociology Stockholm syndrome. It's when you're taken hostage or captive by a sadistic, tyrannical manipulator, and you wind up identifying with your captivator. You, as a captive, are in a hostage situation where you're so terrified and subjected to cognitive dissidents - cognitive dissonance ...

Mhmm.

that you wind up actually coming up with justifications for the person who's abusing you. Right. Like Patty Hearst, you know, being being taken captive by those leftist guerrillas, back in the Yes. Late sixties. Right.

That's fascinating. So this is why Tom Paine thought that the Bible wasn't compatible with the constitution, because our entire constitution is founded on individual liberty, the sovereign self determination of the human person. Right? 

Mhmm. 

Our rational capacity to determine the course of our own lives and to become governors over ourselves.

Mhmm. 

Right? And to treat each other ethically with respect as individuals in a society for the sake of the common welfare. I mean, none of that is consistent. None of that is consistent with the Bible.

With the Bible. Right. Period. 

Yep. 

And he was, you know, straightforward enough to point that out.

Now when he was sentenced to death, when he thought he was gonna be guillotined sitting in a prison in France, he wrote that book, The Age of Reason, where he tears the Bible to pieces.

PLATO'S ROOTS IN THE MODERN WORLD

I watched your podcast with Neil, which was amazing, on the ties or the link between, Platonism and Plato's noble lie and the formation of essentially modern religion. Right? And it seems like there's a I mean, towards the end of the podcast, he asked you the question. He said, is Plato's noble lie the reason that we have religions today? And is it the reason for Christianity or Islam or or any of this stuff? And you said to him, like, that's the do you understand how profound and terrifying this question is? 

So, obviously, I got into reading Plato when I began studying philosophy. I agree with Whitehead, who said that the whole history of philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. Still, 2,400 years later, Plato is the single most fundamental influence on the whole history of philosophy subsequent to himself.

I think he can rightly be seen in a way as the founder of philosophy. There are a group of pre Socratics, we call them, thinkers who came before Plato, who Plato himself is building upon. But, really, philosophy gelled as a human enterprise through the work of Plato. And he's the first philosopher that thinks in a really disciplined way in every domain or dimension of philosophical thought. So we have ontology, which is the study of the nature of reality.

Then you got epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. Then ethics, politics, or political philosophy, and then aesthetics, which is not to be minimized at all. And I'm gonna come back to it because it plays a significant role in Plato's thought. Aesthetics, meaning thinking about the nature of beauty and our perception of forms and, basically, experience of the beautiful and judgments of taste. Okay?

In other words, the estimation of art, of all the arts, architecture, music, etcetera, literature. So you have these domains of philosophy, ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. And before Plato, you had various, you know, sages making kind of random remarks on various aspects of human experience and what they believed the meaning of life in general was. But you had no disciplined inquiry into these distinct domains. You definitely see that in Plato.

It begins with him. Then it's really formalized in Aristotle. Right? 

OK. 

So let me just take the time for a moment to make the point that I still very controversially adhere to that definition of philosophy.

In other words, that a philosopher is someone who has to think in all of these directions and who has to come up with original concepts that cut across these various domains, from ontology and epistemology to ethics and politics and so forth. 

Why is that controversial? 

It's been abandoned by almost the entire academic establishment across, both analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. There are two different schools today in philosophy. One is a kind of Anglo American one, more predominant in Britain and the United States, that's called analytic, and they're very into formal logic and the analysis of scientific problems using logic.

The other is called continental philosophy, which is more engaged with what, you know, the average person would think of as the history of philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and Hegel and Nietzsche and so forth and it's called continental referring to the European continent. Right? In both of these trends of philosophy and academia both of these schools of thought the definition of the philosopher which I embrace has been completely rejected. They think that anyone who scribbles anything that has some relevance to I don't know maybe an understanding of what matter really is. You know, what is matter really like that we're dealing with in physics like on an abstract conceptual level.

Oh, that person's a philosopher. Anyone who writes about ethics, let's say bioethics, like, how genetic engineering should be used maybe to get rid of hereditary diseases, but maybe not to enhance people. Right? A bioethicist is a philosopher. I reject that completely.

Right. 

And the I reject reject it for a really good reason. Not, you know, like, based on some arbitrary, you know, personal fancy. I reject it because it's definitional to a philosopher not to take anything for granted. Going back to people like Pythagoras and Socrates who were executed, they were condemned to death by their societies.

The philosopher is someone who questions everything from a fundamental level and builds up a whole worldview from out of reasoned argument and personal inspiration also, but, you know, using their rational faculty 

Mhmm. 

Without accepting any presuppositions, without accepting any conventional views. So unless you're thinking across all these different domains, you can't do that. If you're let's say you're committed, to use a controversial example. 

Okay.

Let's say you're committed to liberal democracy. That's your political ideology. But as a philosopher, you only wanna do epistemology, theory of knowledge. You only wanna work in the areas of theory of knowledge. And maybe to an extent ontology or the nature of reality, and your work in philosophy is you wanna understand what human nature is.

So you're very engaged with research in biology, right, to do that. You're engaged in cognitive science research to do that. But it just so happens you're a liberal democrat. That's your political ideology, which you're not questioning, and you don't do any work in political philosophy. 

Right.

The whole time that you're pursuing your research and writing in the area of understanding what human nature is, epistemologically and ontologically, you are going to ignore all empirical evidence that suggests that maybe there are vast differences in IQ, that are ethnically based from human population to human population, that human beings are grossly unequal, and that, let's say, it might take genetic engineering to somehow, equalize humans in terms of their aptitude and their potential. You'll reject all of that because those bodies of empirical evidence challenge the liberal democratic ideology that you're unconsciously committed to. You see? And you have no interest in actually thinking through the foundations of political philosophy. Right.

Makes sense. 

See, so that's why or let's say if you're you wanna do some work in, you know, theory of knowledge and look at, you know, look look at how scientists are prejudiced by one or another, political outlook when they marginalize certain bodies of data, which is like what Thomas Kuhn did in his book the structure of scientific revolutions. But let's say you also happen to be ethically committed to Christianity. That your moral compass comes from Christianity and it's unquestioned. 

Mhmm.

Well, that's gonna taint how you look at the history of the shifts in scientific paradigms. You're not gonna wanna see how the Catholic Church destroyed the knowledge base of classical antiquity or why the inquisition was conducted. Right? 

I was just talking to Neil about this yesterday when I was asking Neil, because because I've been learning a lot more about this biblical history, obviously, if you saw the Ahmed episode. That sent me down a fucking never ending rabbit hell hole. But I was explaining him like Bible scholars, isn't that a counterintuitive thing if you're if you're in if you look at it from a scientific perspective? You're admitting the bio, like, there are people that are religious that their whole entire discipline is studying the the history of their religion. Yeah. It's like being a a a top level executive in the Church of Scientology and being a scientological scholar. Right?

But and here's the thing, is that, first of all, you can't be scientific. Right. But to be a philosopher, you have to be even more unforgiving to yourself than scientists are, because scientists take things for granted all the time. First of all, most scientists never even question the paradigm that they're working in the context of. They work on some small research problems.

They write very highly focused journal articles. Right? And that's their contribution. It's only the really great scientists, the geniuses in the history of science, who are often persecuted, who make discoveries that shift the paradigm. But even though scientists are not asking themselves questions about the nature of justice and, you know, how how to run a just society.

Mhmm.

Or even questions about the ultimate nature of reality. They might make some particular discovery in astronomy or physics, but they're not questioning the received narrative about the nature of the cosmos. Right. You see, so a philosopher is burdened with asking those much deeper questions and with thinking in all those directions and not taking anything for granted. That's the definition of the philosopher that Plato established and that I still adhere to, and it's very unusual.

Right. Okay. 

So to go back to Plato and your question about the noble lie, actually, we've paved the way for it. Because you see, in Plato's time, the entire society took almost everything for granted and their worldview was lock stock and barrel, constituted by received customs and prejudices inherited from their ancestors. 

Right.

You see this in Homer and Hesiod. Homer. 

Right. Yeah. And Homer wrote about the Olympian gods.

Right? And had all these They're all over Homer. 

Right. 

They're all over Homer. They they interact with Achilles, with various heroes very directly.

And but the more important point is this, is that the entire culture of Plato's time was an oral culture where you would memorize Homer from childhood the way that Muslims in the Islamic world today memorize the Quran. And your entire matrix of perception was filtered through the way in which you had been hardwired by Homer, by memorizing Homer. Not reading it, memorizing it. It's an oral culture. 

Why why wouldn't you be able to read it?

They didn't read. They couldn't read. They were illiterate people. 

Oh. Okay.

Only a very small group of people could read in Greece. So the rise of philosophy and then by extension of science is contemporaneous with the rise of a literary culture. Because when you write something down, you can analyze it. 

Mhmm. 

It's not going into your cognitive structure in a way that hardwires you to filter all of your experience through the customs, through the exemplars that are embedded in this mythic and epic narrative.

Mhmm. 

Right? You don't have any capacity to take a step outside of the narrative and analyze it because it's not on a text in front of you. It's just you're being, like, brainwashed by it from childhood. 

Right.

Which is what happens in the Islamic world, like I said, today still with the Quran. All these kids in the Islamic world, and his madrassas, they memorize the Quran from childhood. It becomes the fundamental basis for their interpretation of everything else in life. 

Mhmm. 

So Plato is dealing with this kind of a society.

Right? And what's in Homer? Looting, pillage, murder. Zeus himself is a serial rapist.

All he does is manipulate people and, you know, engage in R and R by disguising himself as various animals and going down on mortal women. Right?

So what kind of a moral example does this set for young Greeks who are being raised in that kind of an oral culture? Plato recognized that there was a need to restructure society on the level of the fundamental folklore and the deepest religious beliefs that condition the human person. Right? So he says in Republic, among other texts, we don't really know what happened in distant prehistory. We have these, folkloric accounts.

We have these myths that Homer has composed into a coherent narrative. And we could spin them in any number of other ways than the way in which they're being narrated by Homer. And we could do that in a manner that would be more conducive to cultivating the ethical fabric of the individual. So that, you know, Agamemnon and Zeus and whatever other tyrannical, you know, brutalizing... 

Gods.

...patriarchs and gods are not the role models for Greek children. And we can do it in a way where we also slowly, carefully cultivate man's rational capacity.

So he says that it's incumbent upon philosophers to devise a new religious belief system for the sake of the betterment of society and to rewrite the folklore of society, and restructure the educational system in a way where people will be guided away from this extremely disempowering 

Right. 

and, you know, deranging narrative. 

He wanted such society to be set up in a way that was more progressive that would enable us to evolve. 

And he thought you couldn't do that in a forthright manner for a good reason because, first of all, he saw Socrates, his own mentor, get executed by the democratic assembly of Athens. What was the charge?

Disbelieving in the gods of the state and inventing new gods. That was the charge that Socrates was executed for. Disbelieving in the gods of the state, inventing new gods, and thereby corrupting the morals of the youth. That's why they sentenced him democratically to death. 

Mhmm.

So Plato is seeing the majority do that in Athens. After the death of Socrates, Plato went and joined the Pythagorean order, the the order that Pythagoras had set up a generation before him, almost two generations before him. 

And Pythagoras, same thing happened to him. Right? Or he he got burned alive or something?

Yeah. Well, so Pythagoras had been thinking to carry out these reforms in the society of Sicily, ancient Sicily. And, for example, he wanted to create schools where women could enroll as students, and they could even become teachers. And he also taught things that flew in the face of conventional Greek religion, like, for example, reincarnation, what the Greeks called medempsychosis or or what we call reincarnation. Most people are familiar with it in America on the basis of Hinduism or Buddhism, but, actually, Pythagoras was teaching that and various esoteric Greek societies were teaching about metempsychosis as well.

But it flew in the face of the conventional Olympian religion, which was that you know after death you go down to Hades. Right? So the aristocracy of Sicily Revolted against Pythagoras they rallied the mob like you know in those Frankenstein movies where they come with torches basically and they came with torches to the pythagorean schools and burned them down and Pythagoras either died right then and there or he died from the burns he sustained in that fire shortly thereafter. So Plato joins the Pythagorean order, and now he has not only the example of Socrates condemned to death by the majority in Athens, but also the precedent of Pythagoras and his schools having been burnt down. 

So he has to tread lightly?

Tread well, tread lightly. He has to be deceptive for a noble purpose, which is to reengineer society on a folkloric level in order to give people a religious belief system that works with images and symbols that they're familiar with. Not something completely outlandish that they can't connect to at all. Something that's gonna use language that they would be conversant with, but that's gonna reorient their development in a way that, you know, reaffirms the rational faculty of the human individual and ultimately jump starts science and a more, you know, enlightened society. 

Mhmm.

So that's the idea basically of the noble light. He introduces it in the context controversially of a eugenics program that he that he thinks would be beneficial for society. Plato is the father of eugenics. The first person to suggest selective breeding among humans rather than just selective horse breeding or selective dog breeding or whatever, or selective cultivation of ...

Mhmm. 

plants. The first person to take that idea of selective breeding and apply it to human populations was Plato, where he suggests in Republic that in the ideal society, not just anyone should be allowed to marry anyone because you're gonna wind up with imbeciles and retards. And, you know, especially the higher rungs of society should have a good genetic stock, including, you know, significant cognitive capacities. 

Mhmm. 

He introduces the discussion of the noble eye in the context of his proposals for the eugenics program because he also thinks that you're gonna have to be careful how you introduce such a program to the general population, and, basically, you have to sell it to them in the right way. So that's where the term noble lie is first used.

But the much bigger example of the noble lie and the one that is more central to my work, and it's a greater interest to me, and to cast a longer shadow over history, is this idea that we need to come up - we, the philosophers - need to come up with a new religion that's gonna be more conducive to the cultivation of the individual and of human rational faculties. 

And the philosophers conveniently wanted to be at the top of that pyramid. 

Well, because they're the only free thinkers, and they are in danger of being martyred by the rest of the ignorant rabble who want to persecute and ultimately execute anybody who deviates from custom and questions established traditions, including, for example, for the sake of giving women equality. Right? One of the fundamental proposals of Plato's Republic is that women should be not just, you know, afforded equal opportunities in education, they should also be equal rep equally represented in the political system.

So among the philosopher rulers of the society were these female philosophers. 

Mhmm. 

Which is why it's wrong to call them philosopher kings. It's a bad, like, translation from out of republic. They're philosopher rulers or sovereigns, including women.

And that was considered insane in his time. Right. It's an extremely progressive outlandish policy. Heretical. Yeah.

So who if they if the philosophers like Plato were the ones at the top of the society calling all the shots, was the idea that there would be a like a a round table of geniuses that would keep each other in check? Or would they would they be aware of the corruption of power?

Number one, round table. So there's no king. There's a chairman of a round table.

It's like King Arthur and the knights of the round table, which is a whole other conversation we could have sometime. I've written about that too. 

Mhmm. 

It's a round table, but then interestingly, they're also not allowed to have bank accounts. 

They are The philosophers aren't?

Yep. Oh, wow. People who run society are not allowed to even own any private property. They cannot have a personal bank account to prevent from corruption. He makes it so that no one who's avaricious, no one who's a greedy person, or someone who's a power seeker would even want to be in this position.

Wow. 

Also, by the way, he says that you're not allowed to to get married. There is no one on one marriages because you'll you'll be corrupted just out of love for your wife. 

Right. 

You'll put your wife and your children first, your own children.

So he says, no. The philosophers, they can all have sex with each other, and we won't know who's whose child. 

And is it also true that they were just, like, having sex? Guys were having like, there was no distinguish between homosexuality? 

No. That's actually not true. And I not true? No. And I heard that in your interview with Amon, and it came up again in your conversation with Neil. 

Yeah.

And it's not true. And I don't know where these guys are getting this from. There were extremely strong, stigmas against homosexuality in Greek culture. There was a lot of homosexuality in Greek Greek culture. No question about it.

But there were also rants against it from very prominent intellectuals, including, vociferously from Aristotle. But many intellectuals talk about it and how it's not right, and it's corrupt, and it goes against nature and stuff like that. 

Who So said that, though? Who who where did you read that? 

One of the most prominent intellectuals in the period of Plato was a guy called Isocrates, not to be confused with Socrates. Isocrates. He was a Sophist. He rants against it. Plato himself, I hate to say because I do love Plato, but in his late book, the laws, when he kind of became a stodgy old man, his final work, the laws 

Mhmm. 

Plato proscribes homosexuality.

Prescribes it? 

Proscribes. He bans it. Oh, he bans it. Yeah.

Even Plato and people say Plato was gay. Some people say Plato himself was gay. I don't buy it. I think probably he was bisexual. But in any case, in his late work in the laws, when he's he's much less of an idealist than when he when he wrote republic, and he's now gone through all kinds of misery, including an attempt to change the regime in Syracuse where, you know, he had to flee Syracuse 3 times in in the course of trying to turn this tyrant there Dionysus into You know this ideal philosopher King that he envisages in republic to use Syracuse as a testing ground for his theory right and so he's gone through all this misery and at the end of his life when he's an old man he writes this book the laws and even Plato himself in there writes against homosexuality and why it should be banned.

And then Aristotle vociferously is against it. So there's a whole Greek intellectual class that's critiquing that as something corrupt and, like, against nature. So I don't know. Yeah. 

Why would someone like Amun, who's read probably more ancient Greek than anyone on the fucking face of the Earth Yeah. Why would he say something like that? 

Because he's prejudiced. Look, he's prejudiced. Everybody looks at things. I would like what he's saying to be true.

I would prefer that Greece. Right? Where, you know, there aren't these extremely rigid sexual mores and so and so forth. 

Right. 

And that was true of the mystery cults.

So he's right there, and his focus is the mystery cults. The the Eleusinian mysteries and and the rights of Dionysus and, you know, various cults, the cult of Artemis and so on and so forth, where the people who were initiated into those societies did not adhere to customary morality Got it. In secret. 

How important do you think that these mysteries of, these sacred rituals involving drugs, how responsible do you think those were for the explosion of intellect during that time? 

I would say that, Amun overstated it. It might have been a factor, but a much larger factor was the rise of literacy. Because like I was saying earlier, when writing is developed as a technology, you get to reflect on a narrative in a way that you don't if you're memorizing it. It it sits there outside of you, and you can read it and reread it and stop and take notes on it. 

Mhmm. 

So the rise of a literary culture is very important. There's another huge factor, which I point to in my first book Prometheus and Atlas, and that was the rise of drama. In the generation of Aeschylus, you had the Greek theater emerge as an art form for the first time. Mhmm. Right? And I make this argument in Prometheus and Atlas that the fact that these Greeks were sitting in different seats in the amphitheater to watch plays on various nights allowed them to comprehend perspective for the first time.

So to begin with, I mean, this is very hard for us to wrap our minds around because, You know it's become so second nature for us, but think back to that time there was nothing like theater. Whenever there were performances they were religious rituals where you were part of the performance you are playing the role of a God or a hero or something yourself in a ritual context; you are never sitting in Stands and watching a play be performed outside yourself, moreover the Greek theater is semicircular And so depending on how rich you were or how much money you had for a ticket that particular evening, you would either be sitting in, you know, some crappy seat up here in this corner, or you'd be sitting near the stage down here in this corner. Right? And so on different evenings, you're getting a different perspective on the action. Do you think it's a coincidence that shortly after theater arises as an art form, we get photorealistic Greek sculptures. 

Oh, yeah.

That the Greek sculptures before theater are these rigid things that look like second rate Egyptian or Babylonian sculptures. And then suddenly within a generation of Aeschylus, within a generation of people sitting in semicircular amphitheaters and having perspective on the action 

Mhmm. 

We get true to life Greek sculptures. They discovered perspective. And when you combine the discovery of perspective - also, perspective in a psychological sense, where you're watching the dramas in other people's lives unfold on the stage, And it makes you reflect on yourself for the first time from a third person perspective.

Right. 

You start to think, damn, that's that's me. I've been in situations like that. Look how that character is going through this and that. And you start to reflect on your own life that way.

And they're experiencing this before they can actually even read stories?

Yes. And at the same time, the culture is starting to become literary. So you take the rise of literary culture and the perspective that was inculcated in the population through drama 

Mhmm. 

And theater as an art form, beginning with Aeschylus. And I think the two of them together produce this mutation in cognition. 

Mhmm. 

Drugs may have also been a factor, but I think it's it's been overstated.

BELIEF IN GOD

Do you believe in God? 

No. Not only do I not believe in God, I think that the belief in God is extremely deleterious. It's probably the worst thing that anyone could do for himself, and the reason has to do with free will. Right? So now we're what are we? Almost three and a half hours in, and this is extremely central to my work. And so it really requires a much more dedicated discussion, but I will try to condense it. 
Okay? 

OK. 

Let me know if you're not following me. 

Okay.

All right. So first of all, God, capital g, you know, in distinction from the gods that we've been talking about. Right? In distinction from gods, titans, angels, demons. God, capital g.

That would be like Zeus. 

No! That's a god. That's a god. Okay.

I thought I thought Zeus was, like, the The boss god. 

We don't have God, capital g, until Christianity in the west. They don't have it in Oh, god. They don't have it in the Middle East until Islam.

So we're talking like we're talking like AD? We didn't have a a God with a capital g. 

That might be a fair argument. You might say India had a god a little bit sooner than that. 

Okay.

And so far as Brahma or Brahman rather, Brahman is a supreme being beyond all the Devas. The Devas are gods are subordinate to some supreme being Brahman who's considered like the macrocosm. 

Got it. 

He is considered a mind that encompasses all of cosmic order, and he's also said to be reflected or mirrored in the microcosm of the Atman. So they say in, you know, Vedanta in Hindu mysticism 

Mhmm.

That your truest innermost self is God. God is your truest innermost self and vice versa. The macrocosm is the microcosm. 

Got it. Yes. Makes sense. 

Brahman Atman. Okay. Gotama Buddha completely deconstructed that, by the way. He argued that there's no God, capital g, and he argued that there's no self either.

What reincarnates and by the way, they don't use the term reincarnation in Buddhism in the Buddha Dharma. They use the term rebirth because they think that what gets reiterated from lifetime to lifetime is basically software code. It's like what we would today consider, a software code...

Mhmm.

...which can be copied. Okay.

And it can it can also, there can be bugs in replication, and it can change as it's copied and it can be recoded. Right? Because Gautama Buddha in very much the same way that I'm gonna lay out right now thought that, it's a dangerous delusion to believe either in a permanent immortal soul or in an eternal supreme being. So, here's one of the reasons why it's a dangerous delusion. God, capital G, is definitionally an omniscient and omnipotent being.

God is all knowing and all powerful. Right? I mean, you've heard that I'm sure a million times. Would you stop and think about that for a minute? If God is all knowing, God already knows everything that's gonna happen in the future.

Right? 

Yeah. 

Okay. Well, where is God's mind accessing if God knows future events? What is being represented in the mind of God when God thinks about any and all events that are going to happen in the future?

The future. Right, God is accessing God with his omniscient mind is accessing the future as an existing state of affairs Whenever he wants to know what's going to happen a million years or a billion years from now. Meaning the future already exists for God. That makes sense right? 

Yes. 

Meaning the future already exists. Meaning it's already written. 

Or does he create the future? 

If God creates the future, now we're talking about God's omnipotence. 

Okay. 

Where God is considered by any religious person to be the power behind anything that happens in the world.

Yes. 

And the Quran expresses this very eloquently, where it talks about how, like, even a single leaf doesn't fall without the power of god being behind it. 

Mhmm. 

So it's absolute fatalism in the sense that everything that happens in the world and everything that you do, that you think you do, everything you're under the illusion of having chosen to do yourself is actually an expression of the power of God. Moreover, God knows in advance everything that you're going to do, meaning that everything that you're going to do that you think you have any choice over is already foreordained.

Mhmm. 

Meaning you have no free will. You see? 

Mhmm. 

You are like a ventriloquist dummy.

So an immediate consequence of belief in an all knowing and all powerful being is the negation of your own free will, which I consider to be the worst thing conceivable and the most disempowering. Because if you don't think that you're responsible for your actions and that you are the agency behind what unfolds in your life, at least to some degree. Right? I mean, we have all kinds of things that supervene that, you know, that that influence and impact our decision making. All kinds of things.

Psychological factors, Going back to our childhood. 

Yeah. 

Biological factors. Right? But our even pursuing a certain line of thought, let alone, like, carrying out an action Depends on admitting that we have some intentionality; recognizing that we have intentions that we carry out By pursuing a line of thought or deciding to act in a certain way; whatever other factors supervene on it that fundamental intentionality is a prerequisite of even making sense out of human life.

Moreover, any criminal justice system is nonsensical without it. Right? I mean, what sense does it make to hold somebody ethically responsible for something if they had no free will? 

Mhmm. 

Right? And and I don't know. 

Mhmm. 

Yeah. Mutilating a child or whatever. 

Right.

Right? I mean, so there are horrendous consequences in terms of personal agency and ethical responsibility as soon as we accept the idea that there's an all knowing and all powerful God. 

Mhmm. Yet this is what majority of society in America believes today. 

It's what the majority of Europeans still believe, although Christianity is declining in Europe. The slack in in belief in Christianity in Europe is sadly being mitigated by a rise of belief in Islam in Europe. And it's certainly what the whole Islamic world believes. So the vast majority of people on the planet - and by the way, the Hindus also believe this. Because as I was suggesting earlier, the idea of Brahman and the mirroring of, Brahman in the Atman, the mirroring of the macrocosm and the microcosm fits within the same basic structure of omniscience and omnipotence that's attributed to God or to Allah in the Christian and Islamic worlds. It's essentially the same, despite the other differences in their belief systems.

So the vast majority of humanity subscribes to a religious belief that negates the value and purpose of the human individual. Why would that be the case? How could this have ever come about? 

Right. That's a good question.

Yeah. Well, if you intend to enslave and brutalize a population, it would be very beneficial to make them believe that they're entirely at your mercy and that on an individual level, they are nobody and nothing. You see? 

Yes. 

So as a cognitive dissonance mechanism, as a gigantic brainwashing and conditioning machination, it makes perfect sense if somebody wants to enslave and control us, to inculcate this belief in God Almighty across the entire planet.

And then to say any entities that might come down and interact with you are emissaries. They're angels, evangelos. Right? They're emissaries of the one God. So then these UFO pilots can portray themselves as agents of the Almighty God, which you are utterly powerless to resist. Resistance is futile. That's their mantra. I reject it. Absolutely. 

That's fucking terrifying.

Yeah. But there's a resistance and there always has been. 

Yeah. 

This is why the symbol of Prometheus is central to my work. Because of all the rebel figures, Enki among the Sumerians, Quetzalcoatl among the Mayans, Satan in the Judeo Christian and Islamic context, the rebel figure against the divine order, the rebel figure against the Godfather tyrant that is most complex and most empowering as an archetype with which we can identify as individuals is Prometheus; the Greek account of that rebel against the divine order is so much richer and more sophisticated than the ones that we get from any of the other ancient cultures.

Prometheus is the one that wanted to save humanity from Zeus. Right? 

Well, Prometheus is to begin with the creator of humanity. So one of the things that comes across from the myth of Prometheus is that this, overlord, Yahweh, Zeus, whatever... 

Mhmm. 

..is a liar when he says he's the creator of humanity.

Prometheus created humanity, and Prometheus wanted humanity to be a race of new gods. But then this overlord, Zeus, whatever you wanna call him, Yahweh 

Mhmm. 

Enslaved this new race and was intent on keeping knowledge away from this Right. This this class of beings, and using them as chattel, essentially. And so Prometheus steals the light of knowledge.

He's the light bringer, the Lucifer. He steals the light of knowledge and the fire of the forge and gives that to humanity. In other words, he gives humanity the capacity for scientific research and technological development, but also for greatness in the arts and crafts. And Prometheus also, his son in the Greek myths, Prometheus' son Deucalion is the one who saves humanity from the flood when Zeus brings this deluge to destroy Atlantis. So if you think about it, the biblical version makes no sense at all.

If Yahweh decided to flood the world, to destroy the civilization of the demigods, the rebel fallen angels who created this race of giants. Right? Essentially, the Atlanteans. If Yahweh decided to wipe them all out by flooding the earth, why is Yahweh tasking Noah to save anybody? It makes no sense.

It sounds like a story that's been rewritten. In the Greek version, it's the son of Prometheus who goes against Zeus and schemes to save some portion of humanity and restart civilization after the flood. 

Prometheus' son was the original Noah. 

Yeah. Deucalion. And he's like this Quetzalcoatl civilizer figure who goes around trying to restart agriculture. 

And Christianity said that Prometheus was Lucifer? 

Exactly. Exactly. And this was what ...

Prometheus is the devil?

Yes. And this was well known. Look, diabolos just means, the the the contradictory or the one that that is an opposition Yes. Creates dissonance. Right?

And the word shaytan means the adversary. So these are both epithets. Diabolos or shaytan just means the one who's against someone else. Well, yeah, Prometheus is against the whole Olympian order. Right?

And he's for humanity. And that Prometheus is Lucifer, was well known by the modern writers who reappropriated the symbol of Prometheus beginning in the 1700s when you had people like Percy Shelley, who wrote this poem, Prometheus Unbound, or Lord Byron 

Yes. 

Or Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein. It was known to all of these people that Prometheus is Lucifer. And, like, for example, in in ...

Was that the lord Byron's Cain mystery?

Yes. Yes. And in Percy Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, it's interesting how he uses all the Roman names for the gods. So he'll say Jove instead of Zeus 

Mhmm. 

And Jupiter.

Or he'll say Venus instead of Aphrodite. Or he'll use Mercury instead of Hermes. Right? But when he comes to Lucifer, he uses Prometheus instead. Or he'd rather he doesn't translate the name of Prometheus into its Latin equivalent because he would have to use Lucifer.

Oh Wow. 

You see? So he uses all this is a hint. He's leaving. 

Oh my god.

He uses all Roman Latin names except for Prometheus himself because Prometheus translated, culturally translated into a Latin context, Lucifer. He's the light bringer, and the rebel against heaven. 

Wow. Do we just become Satanists? 

My problem with that, and I've considered it, by the way. I've considered just, like, going with a branding like that. See? Mhmm. But the thing is, it's been so warped by Christians. 

Yes.

And one of the reasons why I decided to, let's say, package my philosophical project, in terms of the archetype of Prometheus, is because first of all, it predates Christianity. It's not dependent on Christianity. 

No. 

Prometheus was a rebel against the overlords for 500 years, at least, before Christianity. The first writing that we have about Prometheus is the tragedy of Aeschylus, which is about 500 BC.

So we know for sure that Prometheus was, you know, a significant figure in Greek culture for half a millennium before the rise of Christianity. So I'm not then defining myself negatively against Christianity. 

Right. 

To hell with Christianity. 

Right.

We're for Prometheus. 

Right. 

Maybe that also means we're against Christianity, but but it's not a negative definition the way that Satanism is. Right. And then you have the whole carnival culture of Satanism today, going back to this this, charlatan grifter. What's his name? Anton LaVey in the nineteen sixties. And the guy was a charlatan grifter, and he just appropriated all this really tacky imagery from, I don't know, vampire movies and, like ...

Yeah. 

...watered down gothic medieval, you know, phantasmagoria 

Mhmm. And and built himself this ridiculous ...


He bastardized it.

...cult, you know, which is, like, as as much a money laundering scheme as Scientology. Right? 

Mhmm. 

So I don't wanna be associated with that. I mean, that's not that's not what I mean by Satan.

My Satan, my shaytan or diabolos is Prometheus. And what does Prometheus mean? His name means forethought. Promethea means forethought. And see, this also connects my appropriation of the symbol of Prometheus with my Iranian heritage.

Because in the religion of Zarathustra, the ancient religion of Iran, the supreme deity is called Ahura Mazda or the Titan of Wisdom. And remember Prometheus wasn't a god. He was a Titan. So Ahura Mazda is called the Titan of Wisdom and the chief quality, the primary attribute of Ahura Mazda is sepanto minu or the forward thinking mentality. The mentality of progress or the spirit of progress at work on a cosmic scale.

Mhmm. 

And Ahura Mazda, defined by his Sepantaminu, by his prometheus, is not an omnipotent or omniscient deity. He is a a force that catalyzes and fosters evolution, and he needs humanity to help him to turn the world into a paradise. So so and and Ahura Mazda is symbolized by fire; by an ever burning fire so actually I've written at great length about how the cult of Prometheus in Greece and the Zoroastrian religion have a common indo european origin that they came originally from the same society, let's say, which was based somewhere in the Caucasus. 

Wow. Jason, I think that's a great way to wrap this podcast up, man. We covered a ton of ton of shit. Yes, we did. Thank you for your time. And where can people get in contact with you, learn more about you, find your books, your writings, all that stuff?

Yeah. I have a website, but I actually think that the best thing to direct people to is probably my X account. So it's Prometheism. Prometheism, it's a contraction of Prometheus and theism. Prometheism@jasonjorjani. Okay.

Jason underscore giorgiani is my X account (Twitter). Okay. And I'm gonna put more of my focus there. 

You have a YouTube channel as well. Right?

Yep. Yep. But I regularly post things from my YouTube channel onto my X account. Okay. But, yes, the YouTube channel is also called Prometheism.

Okay. It's a Prometheism channel. Is this your new book right here?

Yeah, Philosophy of the Future is my newest book. 

Hold it up hold it up, like, like, right here. Yeah.

I'll tell you. That would be right there. So philosophy No. Where's this camera? No.

Philosophy of the Future is not just my newest book. 

Cameras everywhere. 

It's also a kind of grand synthesis of all of my work. So Mhmm. You could read this book either as a general introduction to my entire corpus or as a kind of summary conclusion.

Okay. 

So, really, I would suggest, not for the faint of heart, really, but I would suggest that people who are interested in my work should start there if they haven't read anything else from me. 

Awesome, man. Thank you, man. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. 

And for everyone listening, before we recorded the show, we did an exclusive Patreon q and a where the people on Patreon go to Ask Jorjani. Some interesting questions and we talked about that for about 30 minutes. So if you want to check that out, it's linked below on Patreon. Good night, folks.