Peter Duke argues that modern tragedies, from his Pacific Palisades home loss to Gaza, are part of an oligarchic "control grid" using language and NLP to manipulate belief. He claims ancient Hebrew doesn't exist, suggesting a Phoenician root for Jewish identity and child sacrifice rituals symbolized by statues like "Heritage." Duke proposes using blockchain for constitutional amendments to break this epistemological monopoly, asserting that internal awakening through Logos and Agape allows individuals to resist false narratives and achieve self-perfection against Eastern self-destruction models. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
You might have noticed that the gold and silver prices have been on a tear recently.
Silver prices especially.
Silver's gone up like a rocket and gold has been doing pretty well too.
If you bought silver when I first started talking about it a few years ago, you would have quadrupled your investment by now.
If you bought gold, you'd certainly have doubled it.
And you're probably wondering, is it too late?
Can I still get into this market and make money?
Well, there are lots of reasons why you should have physical gold and silver as an insurance against continued decline of fiat currency, the uncertainties in the conventional stock markets.
I would definitely, I mean, I'm not a financial advisor, I would definitely have some physical gold and silver.
And where do you buy this?
Well, I would go to the Pure Gold Company.
You can buy your gold and silver in the form of coins, for example, gold sovereigns or Brannias or silver Britannias.
Or you can buy bars and you can either have it delivered to your home or you can have it stored for you in vaults in London or Switzerland or wherever you feel best suits your need.
The Pure Gold Company offers a buyback guarantee, fair prices without delay.
So if you have, if you change your mind at any moment, you can trade in your gold or silver.
You call their brokers to discuss your various options.
They can advise you on tax issues.
Will silver go up again?
Yes, probably.
Will it go down again?
Yes, probably.
But I would say you should have some silver and gold in some form, as long as it's solid silver and solid gold, not paper gold.
And I would go to the PURE GOLD Company, the Puregoldcompany.co.uk.
Forward slash, James Dash, Dellingpole.
Forward slash, um.
Welcome back to the Dellingpod, Peter Duke.
The sign that you are back so soon is an indication of how much I loved our last podcast.
Materialism vs Sentimental Value00:04:46
Um, it was great.
Well, thank you so much.
I'm i'm really happy to talk to uh, you know uh, thinkers.
Uh, there's a lot of people who uh, know a lot of stuff uh, and they like to talk about what they know, but there's not a lot of people um, that are constantly expanding their own own horizons.
I, I find and uh, you're one of them, so thank you for having me.
Oh well, that's a, that's a lovely compliment and um, I really, really appreciate it.
And why actually, why are they on on the compliments front?
I like the color of your shirt well well well, thank you.
I, it's new.
Uh, you know, as we said the last time that We spoke, I lost everything that I owned.
So I found this great website.
And I won't be pimping them here, but I found this great website that has lovely products.
And so I've been rebuilding my wardrobe one shirt at a time.
It's a good, it's a good shade.
I will at some stage show you, not today necessarily, my new sweater I've got, which is this kind of moss green.
I quite like that.
Anyway, before we go on, and there's lots of, there's loads I want to talk to you about.
I wanted to ask a question I didn't ask last time, which when you had your house burned down in Pacific Palisades and you lost everything, I mean, how are you dealing with this?
You know, it's in a weird way, it's kind of freeing because I don't know, I've lost my parents.
And, you know, as your parents get older, you know, they start to kind of unload stuff.
I notice my glasses are kind of fogging up here.
I'm going to, they, you know, they kind of unload stuff.
And I think that one of the last things that my mother ever said to me before she passed away is she said, you know, at the end, it's just stuff.
And so one of the things that you go through is that you define yourself, I think, in this very kind of materialist world.
And I'm thinking about who's the guy who wrote the Society of the Spectacle.
I'm trying to remember the name of the author.
He's a French guy.
Anyway, the idea is that we kind of define ourselves by all of these kind of manufactured goods and things.
And, you know, it reminds me of a conversation I had with the vice president of home entertainment for Paramount once.
And I was trying, I was working for Microsoft as a consultant.
And he was, we were trying to sell him this new way to connect DVDs to the internet through web-enabled computers.
And he said, you know, I don't really care about any of that stuff.
And I said, why is that?
And he said, because most people don't watch DVDs.
And this guy was in charge of selling DVDs for Paramount Studios.
And I said, what do you mean most people don't watch them?
And he goes, I've just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing all this market research.
And I found out that most people who buy CDs don't actually even put them into the, I'm sorry, DVDs.
Most people who buy DVDs don't even put them into the DVD player.
And I said, I said, what are you talking about?
And he goes, people buy DVDs for all kinds of reasons.
A lot of times they'll buy DVDs because it was a movie that they saw once and they really liked that movie and they put it up on their shelf and then they never actually watched the movie.
And the reason I'm telling you this story is because I think that a lot of the stuff that we wind up having, it's because it's what we want other people to think about us.
It's not really about us at all.
And so when you lose all of your stuff, one of the things that's really interesting is that, you know, and I was reasonably insured.
I wasn't completely insured, but you wind up getting a big check from the insurance company and then you go to start to replace stuff and you start asking yourself the question, do I really want to replace this?
Is this something that I really want?
Did it really mean that much to me?
You know, and it turns out that most of the stuff falls into the category of I don't really care anymore.
You know, there's a few things, you know, the sentimental things that you associate with your family or your loved ones.
But other than that, most of the other stuff, it turns out it's just stuff.
So that's how I deal with it.
I'm now worried that by complimenting you on your shirt, I may have revealed the materialist within me.
Universal Quantifiers in Speech00:15:22
There was I thinking I was complimenting you on the, it's that particular kind of shade of green that I like.
It's because it's actually not quite a military green, but it's just off.
Well, it's linen, and I was a little worried when I put it on because I don't, the collar I probably could hit with an iron.
And I realized when I was putting the shower, the shirt on that I no longer own an iron.
So are you familiar with the theory about different fabrics having different, they resonate at different frequencies?
No, but it makes perfect sense to me.
And you won't be surprised to learn that the two best frequencies, the most beneficial frequencies are the ones that linen vibrates on and the one that I think wool vibrates on.
Well, that's great because I got a linen shirt and linen pants on.
So I'm bizarrely, apparently, they cancel each other out.
You're not meant to, which is why there are those biblical strictures on mixing fabrics.
You're breaking up again.
I didn't hear that last sentence.
Oh, how annoying.
The Bible has strictures on mixing of fabrics.
And there's a reason for that, that the frequencies cancel each other out, which is why you don't want it.
So it's extraordinary that there is a, is scientific the right word, that there is a logical, practical basis for these apparently crazy injunctions that you get in the Old Testament.
Well, my wife is going to be very interested to hear that because she knits.
And so she's an avid knitter.
And so what the yarn is made out of winds up becoming an incredibly important, sorry, importantly, an incredibly important part of her entire process.
Like she's very picky about the particular material that she's using.
So she'll be really interested to hear that.
And we read the Bible every day.
Oh, yeah, yeah, I do as well.
It's become a hobby of mine.
Yeah.
I really want to talk to you about your fascinating theories about the structure of the language of the of well, particularly Christ's teachings as a kind of way of establishing truth.
I mean, epistemology.
Sorry, what's the word you use?
Yeah, I started off by looking at epistemology.
Well, my entry into things was actually linguistics.
And I wanted to learn neuro-linguistic programming because I wanted to understand how language is used to manipulate us.
What's the blocking and tackling?
Like, how do you actually put words together?
Because for people who don't know, neuro-linguistic programming is just hypnosis that uses conversational language.
So it's a way of stringing, you know, the Greeks might have called it rhetoric, but it's pretty targeted at the individual person.
And so Noam Chomsky came up with, he wrote a book called Syntactic Structures, where he creates, he came up with this thesis.
This is a universal principle.
Like he didn't invent it.
He just wrote it down.
That we all have something that he calls the deep structure of memory, which is basically all of the things that we've ever experienced or understand in our mind.
Some people think it's in our brain.
I don't think so.
I think it's in our mind.
I don't think our mind is our brain.
That's a whole different conversation.
But we have all of these ideas.
And in order to be able to compress what we know into what we can say, we need to do one of three things.
We need to either delete, distort, or generalize our understanding of the world in order to fit whatever the ideas that we have that we want to convey, the questions that we want to ask into a sentence that somebody sitting in front of us can understand.
And so we're constantly deleting, distorting, and generalizing.
And a couple of guys, a retired United States Special Forces Intelligence Officer named John Grinder and his partner, a guy named Richard Bandler, sat down and they figured out what the patterns are in people's language that reflect whether or not they're deleting, distorting, or generalizing.
And that leads to a methodology where you can ask people questions that will reveal whether or not the sentences that they're putting together are deleting, distorting, or generalizing their view of the world.
And so it gives you kind of a skeleton key for getting into somebody's personality that doesn't require any kind of domain understanding of who that person actually is or what their experiences actually are, because you're simply looking at the way that they're putting their language together in order to determine whether or not they're deleting, distorting, or generalizing something.
So that was kind of the baseline.
That's where I started.
So just to interrupt you, do different people tend to do one of those three more often than others?
I mean, are you either a deletion person or a generalization person?
You know, I haven't thought about it.
Again, I don't do this for a living.
Hypnotists actually do this.
This is what they do all the time.
They're constantly analyzing people's language.
And so I'm, and, and, you know, there's a difference between learning how to speak a language and learning how to understand it.
So I don't consider myself a hypnotist, but I understand when I can recognize when hypnosis is being used the same way that somebody, you don't have to play football to understand how football is played.
And so you can be a spectator and you can understand how a sport happens.
So I haven't done that, but I did notice I was watching your conversation with Neil Oliver.
I'm glad you mentioned this.
Yeah.
Because I wanted to, yeah, tell me, make your point.
So you started off a sentence.
And again, you went to Oxford.
You're an English literature specialist.
And so the way that you form words is of a specific character.
And you started off a sentence by using two words, surely you must.
And I don't even remember what you were talking about.
I do.
And this is the bone I'm going to pick with you.
But you make your good point first.
Okay.
Surely you must.
So surely is a universal quantifier, which is a word that takes a concept and moves the needle all the way over to one side or the other, which if you're a podcast host, it's fine because what it does is that it initiates the other person to respond to that generalization, right?
And then you followed it up with must.
And must, again, is a universal quantifier where you're actually pushing the needle all the way over to one side or the other.
And the reason why, and I was thinking about this before we did the interview today, the reason why it's a great technique if you're an interviewer is because if you've got somebody who's kind of like a fence sitter or it forces them into responding with an opinion.
Okay.
The reason that it winds up becoming dangerous, to quote Neil Oliver, is because people who are watching you will model that behavior.
Okay.
And the and the issue winds up becoming is that while it's a great rhetorical device for getting people to talk in an interview, it's kind of a polarizing way to speak in public with other people.
So that was my comment.
Right, right.
So do you think I should issue a health warning before my podcast saying, look, do not, do not copy this man.
Do not copy me.
I'm dangerous.
I use dangerous techniques, which are only for the experts.
No, no, no, not at all.
And in fact, what I do, because I've gotten pretty good at catching myself, you know, the first, when you learn how to do this stuff, you discover suddenly that you're also a victim of pattern matching, what I call pattern matching, which is that we have certain surely you must is probably something you've said thousands or tens of thousands of times in your career.
And it's not a bad thing to say, but when I use universal quantifiers, a lot of times I will call myself out on a universal quantifier just to let my audience know, hey, I'm doing something that I tell people not to do, but I'm letting you know that I'm doing it.
In my defense, I would say that number one, hyperbole is part of my charm.
And also, there's something slightly in the delivery, I would say, which is sort of self-correcting in that I say it in such a way that it's kind of me being over the top.
But more specifically in that instance, I suppose the reason that I was, your criticism, although it was a good point, well made, it slightly rankled was in, actually, you've identified this.
I was frustrated by Neil's fence sitting.
He's quite cautious.
And the point I'd been, he was talking about how, well, on the one hand or the other, on the other, the evidence, some say this, some say that.
And I'm thinking, frankly, fuck this, this fence sitting shit.
I was thinking, tell me what you think.
I'm not interested in this kind of grand overview.
I want to know what you, Neil Oliver, think.
And the context of this was surely you must have developed your own working theory on who's behind all this stuff, who's in charge, what the rules are.
Is it God and the fallen angels?
Is that the deal?
This is my deal.
I'm telling you what I think.
Now, please tell me what you think.
And he was able to evade it because he spotted the linguistic trick being played and he used it to sort of like a matador evading the bull.
But actually in the process, he didn't commit himself to an answer that was really interesting.
Because I don't think fence sitting is an acceptable position.
It annoys me.
It's frustrating.
And that's a perfectly reasonable explanation.
And what I have found on my own podcast is that my audience is super interested in understanding exactly the point that you just made.
That is, whatever Neil Oliver had to say is not as interesting to them, my audience, as the breakdown that you and I just had of the interaction, because it gives them the tools to be able to kind of look at other conversations and spot that stuff.
Oh, let's not pretend that this conversation we're having right now is not really interesting and really useful and people are going to love it.
It's great.
I could analyze this stuff till the cows come home, which was one.
I think one of the reasons that you and I get on so well, we had this sort of instant rapport is although we come from pretty different backgrounds.
And I mean, I have no access to your technical understanding.
You sent me, when I said, what are we going to talk about?
And you sent me this a Dropbox thing.
And you thought you were being kind to me, but actually you were tormenting me because what I had to do was find out which of my various Dropbox emails that it went to to get into my Dropbox.
Yeah, I apologize.
I didn't have an email address for you.
I only had the chat.
Anyway, yeah.
And you've had this fascinating background, not just in tech, but in the movie industry, that you and I, because of our backgrounds, we've come to this understanding about how the world works,
which I think is a very accurate one, which is why we're good and worth listening to, which is that the people who rule the world do so not really by technological advantage.
It's not that they've got, they know how to develop super weapons, and we've talked about nuclear weapons in a bit.
It's they've mastered the art of the use of language as a weapon to deceive.
And it's all about the illusion.
It's not about building bigger bombs or it's about creating the illusion that you've got a bigger bomb, to use the analogy that you use in one of your essays on Yuroshima.
But that's it, isn't it?
It's really that simple.
Have you come across this theory that the word media is related to the meads, the meads and the others?
Yes, and the goddess Medea, I think.
So it is, isn't it?
Language as a Weapon of Deception00:04:07
It's the skill of brainwashing the public into doing what you want.
Ultimately, belief, I mean, we will get to Christian epistemology.
I started off by talking about neuro-linguistic programming, but I needed that as a base, kind of to show you what my path was.
Yeah, belief.
The reason that I think that epistemology, we're in an epi war, an epistemological war, is because, and epistemology is a big long word that just means, how do you know that?
How do you know that's true?
How did you find out that information that you're using in order to frame your reality?
Because ultimately, epistemology is about belief.
It's about the words or the experiences that we all have that frame our belief systems.
And if you think of anything, education or religion or media as the way that belief systems are framed, then you can step back a little bit and see how belief systems are used in order to manage societies.
And to your point, it's a lot more cost-effective than kinetic warfare.
It's a lot more cost-effective than violence in order to manage large populations and get them to do what you want them to do.
Talking of which, are you of the view that what's happening in Iran right now is more kind of illusion than reality?
Putting on my epistemological warfare glasses, I look at the stories that come out and analyze the stories are more important to me than I'm not saying that people getting blown up is a good thing.
And I'm not saying that what's happening in Iran is a good thing or in Gaza.
I don't think that those are good things.
But the stories that come out wind up becoming more informative to me than the actual events that are happening.
And I don't, again, I don't mean to sound anti-human when I say that.
Because in the epistemological warfare frame, those are the most important components.
What is it that people believe and how is it that they're finding those things out?
And so ultimately, I think that what's going on in Iran and Gaza are both related to what Melania Trump was talking about at the UN, you know, 10 or 11 days ago, which is it's the rollout of the control grid.
And they're going to use the fact that people have had their homes destroyed and that there's lots of orphans in order to be able to kind of pull on the heartstrings of people.
But I think that I look at all of the places that are being cleared.
And, you know, I come from the Pacific Palisades, and the difference between the Pacific Palisades and Gaza is that people, only 12 people got killed in the Pacific Palisades.
But from a real estate standpoint, there isn't any difference between the Pacific Palisades and Gaza.
It got cleared.
Okay.
It just got erased off the surface of the planet.
It's a clean slate, as it were.
And so what I think is going on is that they are resetting Iran and they are resetting Gaza and they're resetting the Pacific Palisades.
And in order to put in this new thing that they've published white papers and books and they do UN speeches about, like they tell you what they're doing.
Yes.
Yes.
And what was the place in Hawaii which they also cleared?
Lahaina.
Yeah.
Lahaina.
Yeah.
Reframing Belief Systems Through Words00:16:30
Yeah.
No, I think you're right.
So let's go to the Bible and go to the teachings of Jesus.
I think it's fascinating what you say.
Right.
Yeah.
So when I learned to learn neuro-linguistic programming, like I said, my wife and I read the Bible every day.
My wife is Catholic and we read the Old Testament.
We read a chapter of the Old Testament and we read a chapter of the New Testament every day.
And when we get done with it, we start over again.
And that's been a routine of ours for five years now.
And so I'm like two and a half or three times through the Bible already.
And numbers and Leviticus get more interesting every time.
Okay.
Okay.
I discovered yesterday, this is something that I didn't know, but again, my fascination with words.
Testament.
Do you know what the word testament means?
No, tell me.
Well, it's related to the word testicles.
Okay.
And basically what it means is your ability as a man to continue your line through your offspring.
And so it basically means that you're swearing on your testicles, okay?
That this is the truth.
And the reason that Abraham has his servant put his hand under his leg is to check to make sure that his testicles are there.
Okay.
When he swears his oath, he's swearing it with the correct equipment.
Yes, that you're swearing on the correct equipment.
Yeah, that's exactly what it's about.
And so, so, so the use of words in order to define things is an incredibly important component.
And like I said, I don't think that Noam Chomsky invented the deep structure.
He wrote about it.
I don't think that John Grinder and Richard Bandler invented metamodel patterns.
They just documented them.
They are things that have existed.
And what's great about learning linguistics is that it is kind of language independent.
That is, there's different nuances between English and German and Latin and Greek.
Okay.
But specifically, a cause-effect complex equivalency is a cause-effect complex equivalency.
And I'm sorry, or a universal quantifier is a universal quantifier in different languages.
And so what I and I know for a fact that people like Robert Diltz, who's also a big name in neuro-linguistic programming, that they that they used people like Martin Luther King and Jesus of Nazareth to determine what the structures were in neuro-linguistic programming in order to be able to identify the patterns.
So it's not a coincidence that if you learn neuro-linguistic programming, you can look at the New Testament in a completely different way because Jesus is using the same techniques.
And to that end, because my wife and I were reading the Bible every day and I was learning neuro-linguistic programming, I started to pick up on the fact that he's with the with the exception of intent, okay, which is usually the difference between a pickup artist and a and a therapist who are using neuro-linguistic programming is intent, right?
It's the outcome that they're trying to elicit out of the person that they're having a conversation with.
And what I started to pick up on and what I started to realize is that Jesus is using the same techniques that Tony Robbins uses, okay, in reframing people's belief systems.
And ultimately, again, what Jesus is doing is that he's changing what people believe by virtue of the conversations that he's having with them.
So, for example, in the uh when uh, when they they, there's a situation where they uh the Give unto Caesar, uh uh, uh story, where you know they, where where they say, do you, is it okay uh, for you to you're a Jew, is it okay for you to play pay taxes?
Um, and he recognizes that as what?
As something that uh, uh Gregory Bateson defined as a double bind.
Now, Gregory Bateson didn't invent double binds.
He just wrote it down.
Okay.
And Jesus was put into a double bind.
And so what he does is he asks them a question to show them a coin.
Okay.
When he does that, he's reframing the conversation.
Okay.
And then he answers the question within his new frame.
Okay.
That's neuro-linguistic programming.
Okay.
That's that.
I mean, again, he did it first in that circumstance.
But if you start to break down the technique that Jesus has in each one of the red letter situations that he's in, he's constantly identifying deletions, distortions, and generalizations in the situations that he's in.
And then he's appropriately reframing using a neuro-linguistic technique, reframing the conversation to reorient it, reorient the belief system of the person that he's having a conversation with.
Okay, so that's the blocking and tackling of what he's doing.
So what's interesting about looking at it that way is that it becomes dogma-free.
And a lot of people who are on the fence about what being a Christian means or what your belief in God actually means to you becomes a lot more practical because it is something that you can practice it.
You can do it.
And a lot of the words like logos, John 1-1, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word is God or the word was God.
That word logos is an active process that gets turned in English or in Latin into a static noun.
And logos is what you and I are doing right now.
We are using language in order to convey ideas that have the potential to reframe each other's belief systems.
That's something that we can do that a dog can't do.
Does this mean that ancient Greek was a much more subtle language than anything we've got today?
Or is it well, yeah, nuanced, I think maybe, yeah.
Yeah, nuanced might be a better word.
But yeah, yeah, I think it was significantly more nuanced.
But the main thing, and again, I think that you read about these things when you start investigating the history of Christianity that nominalism winds up becoming a big thing.
Now, again, I wasn't a linguist when I started this, but a nominalization is simply the idea that you take an active process like logos and then you turn it into a static noun.
And probably the most significant one besides logos is the word consciousness.
Consciousness, there's a billionaire who's the kind of the George Soros of California named Nicholas Bergruen.
And he gives this, he has this prize that he gives out every year on the essay that can best define consciousness.
And the metadata on that is that why in 2026 are we having essay contests where people have to define a word that in Greece 3,000 years ago had a completely concrete meaning and everybody knew what it meant,
which is syneadesis, which is simply the ability to recognize your own frame, to recognize that you have a perspective in the world and it's different from everybody else's, and that the way that you frame your own reality is based on your own experiences.
And that it's a pretty, it's a pretty concrete definition of that word.
And yet in 2026, 3,000 years later, we're struggling to discover what it is.
I can go on and on about that.
But jumping back to Christianity for a second, if we understand what the definitions of the basically, there's four words.
There's more.
Okay, maybe five or six.
But there's a few words that if you actually understand what they mean in Greek, when you're reading the New Testament, it has a lot of impact on what the New Testament means.
And this isn't Bible code.
It's not Gematria where you're taking the third letter of every page and putting it together and building a sentence.
It's simple because Jesus is Logos incarnate, right?
It says it right there.
Jesus is Logos incarnate.
Logos is the process of reasoned discourse that you and I are using right now.
So he's reasoned discourse incarnate.
Okay.
And so if you are reading the Gospels and you understand that he, it says that he's reasoned discourse incarnate.
I'm not making that up.
That's what it says.
If you understand what's going on.
At the beginning of John, yeah, exactly.
Okay.
That's what it says.
Okay.
Then anytime that you see he or he's speaking, if you think about him as logos, not as a man, but as Logos, then a lot of the things that happen wind up becoming self-evident.
If you think of the Father as unknowable truth, when he says that only through me can you get to the Father, only through reasoned discourse, okay, can you get to the truth?
Okay, then ding, ding, ding, you know, a lot of lights go off.
And so, you know, when you start to read the Bible and understand it in that epistemological and linguistic frame, a lot of what winds up happening is this belief reframing.
And so why does that wind up becoming so important today in 2026?
And that is because I believe that in this battleground that you're talking about, where belief system winds up becoming the main way that human beings are controlled, then you need to be able to find a way to find the Father in a truth-free environment.
And I don't think that Jesus was dealing with a different situation in his day than we're dealing with in our day.
In that um, you've got a bunch of people who are running around who are trying to control other people's belief systems, and Jesus is giving uh a uh, a basic blocking and tackling uh a toolkit uh, for people to be able to discern truth in a truth-free environment.
Right, if you don't know anything else uh, if you use these methods, you can find your way to the father.
You can use reason discourse in order to find your way to the truth, and I think that that's a very practical way of looking at Christianity.
I was very struck um, when reading your thesis um, about something that i'd already intuited a while back, but I hadn't had it confirmed really, when I started going down the rabbit hole and becoming a sort of more serious Christian.
At the same time, I realized that the two things were intimately connected, that that that when the the journey that you take as a Christian, is very similar to the the the, the journey you take when you go down the rabbit hole and you have to cast all your old life behind you, you have to abandon, and you do.
You get abandoned by everyone um, pretty much who's not on the same path?
Um, and there are very few of you.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your Normie friends?
Well, i've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in well, 2011 actually, the first edition came out and it's a snapshot of a particular era, the era when the people behind the Chin climate change scam got caught red-handed tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climate Gate.
So I give you the background to to the skullduggery that went on in in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and and why it's a good story.
I've i've kept the the original book pretty much as is, but i've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it's a good.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's.
It's a good read.
I obviously i'm biased, but i'd recommend it.
You can buy it from Jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that right.
Just go to my website and look for it, Jamesdellingpole.co.uk and I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother God.
No, we don't, it's a scam.
I was very struck when reading your thesis about something that I'd already intuited a while back, but I hadn't had it confirmed, really.
When I started going down the rabbit hole and becoming a sort of more serious Christian at the same time, I realized that the two things were intimately connected.
That when the journey that you take as a Christian is very similar to the journey you take when you go down the rabbit hole and you have to cast all your old life behind you.
Crisis: From Discernment to Panic00:03:17
You have to abandon, and you do.
You get abandoned by everyone pretty much who's not on the same path.
And there are very few of you.
And you get persecuted for it.
These things apply both to conspiracy theorists and Christians.
I mean, and you've explained why now.
Well, again, I'm just looking at the words, but if you understand that Jesus is Logos Incarnate, and that, again, the words are logos, which means a reason discourse.
There's crisis, okay, which in English means something bad is about to happen.
Okay.
But in Greek, it means discernment.
So then you have to ask yourself the question.
So the political translation of words is called hermeneutics.
And so the translation of logos to the word or crisis to crisis in English as opposed to discernment.
Okay.
These are political decisions that get made.
Right.
You think so?
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
They were hijacked deliberately and distorted for political ends.
For epistemological ends, yes.
Okay.
So because if you change the meaning of a word, then you change the belief system in the people that are reading those words.
That's quite a, it's quite a long way from crisis in its original meaning of discernment to, oh, I'm having a crisis.
Well, what about meek?
You ride a horse.
You ride horses, right?
I do.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Meek in its Greek form, again, you have to kind of dig through the little Scott lexicon in order to get there, but meek in its original form is that ability, that reserved strength.
And the example that they give, it's in, I can't remember which Greek poet wrote about it, but it's the ability to control a war horse with your reins.
Right.
Which I failed to do the other week when I broke my race.
Was that going under your finger?
Yeah.
My war horse, which was an ex-racehorse, was so strong.
and i was trying to rein him in and i couldn't and i literally broke my finger on his on his neck strap trying to and in fact i broke one finger and the other finger which is the other finger that goes under the neck strap again my ring finger i've damaged one of the nerves um i Because I've been focused on the broken finger, I hadn't realized that the other finger was a problem too.
Well, I did that with a little teeny dog with my little finger on my right hand years ago.
So you shouldn't be embarrassed.
Okay.
Okay.
But that's, of course, this changes the meaning of the so inherit the earth.
Yeah.
The mink.
Ancient Wisdom on Meekness00:03:31
So it's not people who are just kind of going, oh, do you think so?
Oh, really?
Well, whatever.
Whatever.
What is our current understanding of meekness?
It's just kind of.
It's kind of weak and humble, and you know quiet and you know uh, but no, it's reserved strength is is what the reserved strength well, that makes?
That makes more sense that they would inherit the earth.
Of course it does so much, so much more sense.
Do you think?
Do you think that um, the church fathers get this or not?
Or are they working on the mistranslation?
Do you think?
I mean, do you think, do you think Christianity has been almost totally taken over by these, these kind of, by the hermeneutics the, by the, the false definitions?
I, I think, Roman Christianity?
I said something to my wife yesterday.
My wife is a Catholic.
She said she loved you saying this.
Well no she, I make her very uncomfortable uh, but uh uh, she was.
Uh I, I did my pod my, my live stream yesterday and somebody was ask she was.
She moderates my chats for me and um, somebody was uh, berating her about.
You know what kind of a Christian I am?
Is he a Catholic?
Is he?
This is?
Yeah, and i've, i've thought about this a lot because it's very important to my wife and um and I.
I came to the conclusion just yesterday I, I looked at her I, I thought of this a few days ago, but it's the first time it came out of my mouth.
I said I figured out what kind of a Christian then I am.
And she said, what's that?
And I said i'm a lowercase Catholic.
Um, oh right yeah well, that's that's the universal that.
Yeah right, so that she got.
She didn't, she didn't laugh, but it made her smile.
You're like so do you?
Do you reckon the orthodox of I, I?
I was struck when I went to, um to Moscow last year and I was taken to the the, the fantastic Super monastery outside Moscow where lots of good stuff's happened um, and they've got, you know, loads of, loads of good icons and it's, it's serious um, and it's quite heavily fortified, the walls outside um, the surrounding walls,
and somebody told me that that back in the day that this monastery was besieged and pretty much everyone inside died, but they held, they held out and, and and the the, the monks became warriors when they were in times of, I suppose, say in times of crisis, but but when trouble appeared the, the monks were not meek any longer.
They they, they picked up their spears, or their swords, and and or their war hammers and went out to fight.
I was just wondering is, is that still there, do you think in the?
Yeah well well, it's funny because when I came to when I again what I do is uh, I.
This has been a journey for me, like if you look at my podcast, two years ago or three years ago, I wasn't talking about any of this stuff because I hadn't figured any of it out yet.
Um and um and uh, and so uh, I have an audience uh uh, that's global.
And one of my uh, one of my uh subscribers started texting me because he lived in Greece and he said, Peter, he said, you have to move to Greece.
And I said, why is that?
And he goes, because we've known what you're saying for 2,000 years now.
Epistemological Control and Logos00:11:22
Okay.
Right.
Right.
And so when you start to look at things like the Fourth Crusade, where the Roman church teamed up with the Venetians in order. and convinced a bunch of French knights that they were going to go to Jerusalem and free Jerusalem from the Moors or the Saracens.
I can't remember who it was that was in Jerusalem at the time.
But they wound up going to Constantinople and sacking Constantinople in 1204 and replacing all of the Greek-speaking prelates in the church with Latin-speaking prelates.
So there's a few important things that happen in the Fourth Crusade that you don't really read about in a lot of books.
One is that the monetary system of the Roman Empire, the Pontifics Maximus in Constantinople, had the right to mint gold coins.
And then the second thing was that the Greek-speaking Catholic Church got replaced with the Latin-speaking Catholic Church in 1204.
So those things happened where you basically had, you know, Catholic on Cat.
It was a crusade, but it was Catholics fighting Catholics, Greek Catholics fighting Roman Catholics.
Roman Catholics, yeah.
Yeah.
So.
Right.
So from an epistemological standpoint, just from a language standpoint, that's a, that there's a big important shift if you understand the importance of taking logos and turning it into word or taking, you know, prouse and turning it into crisis.
Or I don't know if that's the right word.
That's the right one.
Anyway.
The cross is meek, yeah.
Prouse is meek.
Yeah.
So you got, you have, you have logos, you have crisis, you have prouse, and then you have agape.
Agape is love, and it's, it's, it's love that you do.
It's an, again, it's an active word.
It's not a noun.
It's not a feeling that you have.
It's something that you do.
You do something for the good of the people that you're making your decisions for.
And that's a, again, in English, when people start talking about Christian love, well, it was agape in Greek.
In English, we tend to take a bunch of different forms of love, eros and agape.
And I think that there's a couple of other Greek forms of the word love.
And then we put them all into this word love.
And it becomes, when you do that, you create confusion, which I call magic.
I think that when you take something self-evident, like agape, and then you turn it into English, love, or probably a better example is logos.
You take logos and you turn it into the word, then you're nominalizing it.
You're turning it into an object.
And that allows you to introduce an intermediary who can explain to you what the thing that you don't, the self-evident thing that you don't understand.
The reason that you don't understand it is because they've taken the self-evident component of it, which is a meaning, and then they've turned it into an object that you have to be able to kind of puzzle out somehow.
And you need help.
You need someone to explain it to you.
Yeah.
So a magician.
This is really, really interesting.
And it goes a long way to confirming my view that Christianity is too important to be left to the church.
Because, yeah.
Well, again, again, I think that there's just looking at it from an epistemological level, Matthew 18, 20 says, where two or three gathered, I am there.
Okay.
The logos is there.
Okay.
The reasoned discourse is there.
He also said in at least, I think, eight different places that if you put more than 11 people in the room, bad things are going to happen.
Did he say that?
The allusion is to Judas, right?
Okay.
Okay.
But basically, the number 12 is in there several times.
And he says one of the 12 of you is going to betray me.
And I think that the inference there is that if you keep your group smaller than 12.
Yes.
Okay.
And I actually fundamentally believe that the reason that Christianity became the grassroots movement that it became specifically because of that strategy, that small, it's called in counter intelligence and counterintelligence, it's called the cell structure, right?
It sounds like a terrorist structure to me.
Well, they want to call it a terrorist structure because the Romans thought the Christians were terrorists.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So the, and I keep telling, I said this on my show yesterday.
It's like, I don't want I don't want to put together a group of a million people that follow Peter Duke or James Dellingpaw or anybody else.
I want people to figure out what I'm saying and then go tell their friends.
Okay.
That's the because that's the winning strategy.
And that's why Christianity became an unstoppable force.
I'm with you on all this.
I tell you what, apart from I'm trying to study Russian at the moment, but you've made me think, oh, I really should be doing ancient Greek.
What's the word?
What is Koine Greek?
Is that just ancient Greek?
Look, here's the great news.
The great news is that large language models are not, I don't believe in the two words artificial intelligence.
I think it's a misnomer.
But the large language models are really good at language.
They're really good at it.
And you have to be careful.
But a lot of the research that I have been doing, I go into large language models.
I ask it to look at the original Koine Greek.
I have specific prompts that I use that I'll share with you, that I'll share with anybody in order to keep it focused, in order to make sure that it's not hallucinating and telling me something that isn't so.
But the large language models are really, really good at doing translation and nuanced translation.
And you have to steer it.
So when I'm studying Greek, I always require that it use the oldest Koine Greek sources.
People go, which version of the Bible do you use?
Do you use the King James?
Do you use the Vulgate?
And it's like, no, I use the original Koeni Greek, you know.
And you can access The oldest forms of the Koeni Greek, which are in the Vatican Library, because they've all been digitized.
Okay.
Do they have a name?
The Gospels in the.
Yes, they do.
And I don't know them off the top of my head, but I have them in my notes.
So the Gospels, it's right.
The Gospels were all originally written in Greek.
With the Old Testament, you've got the Septuagint, which is a yeah, well, yeah, and there, and there, and there, there is um controversy about whether or not the Septuagint was actually written in Greek also and then translated uh in the sixth century to Hebrew.
Yes, well, this is okay.
And given that we don't, there was no evidence of this old Hebrew, the Hebrew language, is that which is crazy.
I mean, it does my head in to think that there's this supposedly the language in which the Old Testament was written doesn't exist anywhere.
It kind of makes me a bit suspicious, and you should be, and and but but that's why look looking at things on an epistemological level, it's like, okay, here's a belief system, okay, that's being used in order to control people.
Okay, you can get down into the weeds of the dogma of it, and but if you if you stay on an unmetal level, uh, you can say, okay, well, this is the belief system that was being used in order to control all of these people.
Um, and yeah, uh, is it true or not?
That's a different question, right?
Um, uh, but was it used as the motivation for getting people to plant crops at a certain time or uh you know, uh, how was that Ecclesiastes exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um, so uh, you know, and and that kind of you know, you know, part of what my exploration is has been is trying to figure out, you know, who this cult is that that controlled the world, and yeah, uh, and and I don't think it's the Jews, I don't, I don't, I'm not into that.
Well, do they even exist?
I mean, I don't even know who the Jews are, so that's what yeah, well, we'll start to find out where the word the word Jew came from.
Where's that word again?
One of the great things about doing this and large language models, okay, is that you can go in and you can say, where did the word Jew come from?
Right.
And I haven't done that.
It's on my list.
Oh, you must do.
And you must get back to me.
Sorry to use that must there, but it's quite, it's quite imperative.
I know that Hebrew means from over on the other side of the river.
Okay.
Which it must be the Jordan.
So it's the tribes that lived on one.
So I think that like the Levites and the Judea and Levites lived south of the Jordan and the other 10 lived north of the Jordan.
So Hebrew means over the river.
Again, when you start to learn what the words mean, then things start to make a lot more sense.
Yes.
Yeah.
No, I share your suspicion of the it's the Jews because I think you've got to define Jews.
You've got to, I, I'm, I am very taken with the with the Phoenician theory.
Yeah, yeah.
And I see the matrilineal nature of it because where there is where there is a crossover with with with with the Jews.
Um but I can see it would really work as a as a kind of as a as a sort of secretive control mechanism.
Which matrilineal bloodlines.
Oh, yeah.
Oh yeah.
Secretive Matrilineal Bloodlines00:15:33
Yeah.
And it's a yeah, I mean, I could, I could go on and on about that.
Um, but the uh uh the child sacrifice thing, um, on oh, tell me about that.
Well, I mean, on January 5th, I walked by this really weird stat.
So I was the official photographer for Stop the Steel.
I was a MAGA through and through.
And I was on the top echelon of MAGA.
Like I was involved with the people who were the major influencers.
And my entree into that was my ability as a photographer.
So I built a network of the most influential MAGA people out there.
And I felt like I was in a honeypot slaughter pen on January 6th.
I was at the Capitol.
I had a credential.
I was in the front row.
I was on the steps.
And so I felt completely betrayed on the 6th.
But on the 5th, because I come from Hollywood, I decided that the best use of my time getting there a day before the event was to walk the plant, which was to go to all the different locations that were scheduled for Donald Trump to be the next day to figure out where the best place to stand to get a good picture would be.
Because the name of the game is getting there first, right?
And so I was walking down Constitution Avenue with a friend of mine who I had hired as an assistant who just happened to be an expert in the occult and esoteric.
He's got thousands of books.
And he points to the Shermaphrodite on the top of something called the Mellon Auditorium that's supposed to be the goddess Columbia.
Why do Americans have made up goddesses?
There is no goddess Columbia, by the way.
There's no Roman Greek goddess Columbia.
That's an American made-up thing.
Like Britannia is a made-up British thing.
Okay.
And so, but it was cold and I didn't have time.
And then we kept walking.
And a block down in front of the National Archive is this statue that's called Heritage that is another hermaphrodite.
Okay.
So it's a very male looking frame, shoulders, legs, feet, and an androgyny.
Yes.
Androgynous face with boobs.
Right.
And in one arm, it's holding a baby in a sheaf of wheat.
And in the other arm, it's holding an amphora or an urn with a snake on top of it.
And on the base of it is a winged solar disc.
So this is America, right?
This was put up in the 1930s.
Okay.
And I was going, what is that?
And by the way, I've done some research on it.
It was delivered as a solid block of limestone.
And the sculptor actually sculpted it out on site.
So they put a little curtain around it.
And the guy sculpted it where it sits right there.
So they didn't sculpt it someplace and move it.
They sculpted it in place.
Anyway, I ran into a book.
I've talked to you before about Mrs. Heritage History.
And I've been doing a lot of research on the Phoenicians.
And I found a book by a woman named, I think, Justine Quinn.
Is that her name?
Alice?
Justine Quinn, I think.
Oxford archaeology professor wrote this book called In Search of the Phoenicians, where she talks about these things called the Phoenicians.
First of all, Phoenicians just means people from the Levant if you live in Greece.
There was no country called Phoenicia.
There's no Phoenician flag.
People will tell you that the Red Cross or that these other things are Phoenicians.
It may have something that they all had in common, but they didn't think of themselves as Phoenicians.
They thought of themselves as Tyrians or, you know, whatever.
Anyway, it did a very good job of explaining to me, it gave me the knowledge to be able to look at that statue and interpret it.
And basically, what that statue says to me, my interpretation of it, my semiotic interpretation of that statue is that the seed of the past brings the harvest of the future.
The seed is the baby.
Okay.
Because in child sacrifice, what Quinn found in all of these Toffet cult, she calls it the Toffet cult.
The Toffets are a circle where there's a bunch of urns buried in the circle, and inside the urns are the remains of sacrificed infants.
So we hear about the baby sacrificing, but we don't hear about the telos or the eschaton.
Why were these people burning babies?
Like, why were they doing that?
Okay.
And on the tops of the circles are these stela, S-T-I-L-E stelae, which look like gravestone markers, except that when Quinn translated them,
and she translated like many of them, they're receipts like you would get at Costco for this payment, which was this baby that we sacrificed, we got this product.
We got this harvest.
So they're receipts.
The stila are the receipts that confirm that for the sacrifice, there was a payoff.
Okay.
And so you wind up with this very trans, it's very transactional.
Let's just say that the stela are very transactional.
And so then I remembered the statue and I went back and I looked at the statue and I went, well, the urn is where the baby goes after they sacrifice the baby.
Okay.
And the wheat, which is the harvest, is the thing that's guaranteed by the sacrifice of the child.
So it's a child sacrifice statue that is sitting on the steps of the United States National Archives that was put there in the 1930s.
Okay.
So are you going to, is that the Jews?
I don't think that's the Jews.
Okay.
Well, I think it, I think it just goes deeper than that.
I mean, the point I sometimes make is that the Jews didn't exist as a people before a certain period.
So you've got to wonder who was doing the bad shit before them.
And it's well, the Old Testament is filled with stories of getting rid of those people.
Right.
Yeah.
God is frustrated.
They are the golden calf people, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
They were the people Samuel was supposed to wipe out and get rid of.
Right?
So a lot of this might just be revenge, you know, the Phoenician revenge by blaming it on the Jews and then taking all of their territory back.
That makes sense to me.
Yeah, and I don't think that statue was put there by accident.
I don't think it was put there.
It was sculptured in innocence by a guy who just happened to have seen some Phoenician sculptures on his right.
And I'm just going to put a winged solar disc on the bottom because it looks good.
Yeah, whatever.
Give her a wing, give her a baby.
Yeah, because likewise, the Statue of Liberty, I don't believe there isn't a god, Liberty.
Okay.
No, that is Lucifer, isn't it?
No, it's Addis.
Oh, is it Attis?
Okay.
Addis from the Sibel and Addis.
And bringing this back to the Testament, what is Addis famous for?
Cutting off his own testicles.
Oh, okay.
So Addis is, you're breaking up, so I'll talk for a second.
Addis is part of the Sibel and Addist cult.
And famously, he was kind of a shepherd who fell in love with this goddess.
And then he betrayed her because he fell in love with a nymph, like a naiad, a river nymph, or something like that.
And he was so ashamed that he castrated himself and bled to death, I think.
And Sibel was so taken aback that she turned him into a tree, so a pine tree, right?
Which we all put up in our houses at the end of December.
Oh, so we do.
Yeah, we put this Addis tree up in our house.
I don't think you finished making your point about how the Phoenician, there was a sort of subgroup of Phoenicians.
Yeah, so yeah, so they were the people who were driven out of the Levant.
Okay.
So Moses and company, his descendants, were constantly trying to get rid of these people in that part of the world.
And they wound up settling in colonies.
Carthage was the biggest one.
But they were also in Sicily and Sardinia and North and other parts of North Africa.
And so and so that's and if you think about like the Italian mafia and the things that the overlaps between their methods and the Italian mafia, then it makes sense that in Sicily and Sardinia and Northern Africa that these things were going away.
Yeah.
So just going back, I know it's presumptuous to try and work out what the mind of God is.
But as I understand it from your theory, God sends his only son to take human flesh and to die for our sins.
But simultaneously, he becomes a sort of metaphor linguistic?
A nominalization, yeah.
That enables because, okay, so God looks at the earth and he sees that he's very disappointed.
I mean, things have just gone terrible.
That people haven't obeyed his injunctions to take out the people who put their children in the fire.
They've adopted the ways of the very people that he said he most abhors.
And unfortunately, the deal is with free will that God cannot just storm in there and intervene and smite all the bad guys and rescue all the goodies.
He has to let us fight it out for ourselves.
And so what he does is he gives through Jesus, he expresses, he gives us the secret of fighting back linguistically against our oppressors and discerning.
Yes.
Is that how it works?
Yes.
And that, and then in order to control that, because it became grassroots and uncontrollable, then you need to apply magic.
So you need to wrap that process in a mystery and introduce experts to explain it to people.
Did God want that bit?
Was it the church?
Isn't that the church intervening in that?
Isn't that the sort of the political system?
Well, Ecclesia is ecclesia is another word that became church.
Ecclesia just means a group of people.
Yes.
Yes.
So I get that.
I haven't done enough research on that particular component of it, frankly, because I think that it'll cause more domestic strife for me than anything else.
I mean, I don't know about you, Peter, but I feel very, very blessed that my Christian journey started at about the same time as my journey down the rabbit hole.
Because what it means is that I haven't got that much dogma weighing me down.
I mean, I'm the Church of England.
You can think what you like.
Luckily.
I have a funny story about that, but go on.
So my brother Dick is now a catachuman in the Orthodox Church.
And I applaud it.
And I envy him in many ways.
But I feel at the moment that I'm on a mission to find out what God really wants.
I mean, that is the essence of godliness, trying to do God's will.
Indeed.
And that's really important to me because I think it's the key to everything, happiness apart from anything else.
And obviously, whatever happens hereafter.
But it's difficult, isn't it?
It's difficult.
And what you're saying now about logos and discernment and meekness and agape, it makes sense to me that it's kind of up to us to use these skills to work out what the deal is.
But that's what you're saying.
It's not just to kind of sit there and listen to what your priest tells you.
The kingdom of God is within you.
Yeah.
He didn't stutter.
And we're not being Gnostic here, but are we?
I mean, it's not a, it's not a.
With a, with a lowercase G.
Yeah.
Yes.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Yeah.
Which is fair enough.
Right.
Again, again, because being Gnostic is an is an active pro with a lowercase g is an active process.
Yeah.
Right.
With an uppercase G, it's a, it's a noun.
It becomes a static object.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Mike, so I have a question for you.
Stochastic Elections and Accountability00:09:43
Yeah.
Which is you're, because you're an English literature major at Oxford.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, do they talk about this at Oxford?
No.
No.
I mean, I do credit my, my tutor, um, Peter Conrad, who is, who is brilliant with my intellectual formation.
I mean, he did more for me than anybody has done before or since because he insisted that we work out work out stuff for ourselves.
He said, here's your reading list.
And here's a list of critical texts.
But he said, why read the critical text when you can just read the texts and respond, which is a wonderful thing to be told when you're 19 and you're emerging from a school system which has trained you to kind of parrot stuff.
He gave me permission to think for myself, which was great.
But I don't think that the education I had in Christchurch was typical of the experience of even at that time when Oxford was undoubtedly a better university than it is now.
Better at encouraging original thought to a degree, not on PPE maybe, but in the English literature.
Right.
Again, you and I have talked about this before.
Because I think that it's interesting because when I go to find like the definitive sources, a lot of them are Oxford publications.
So I was doing research on the fasci, and there's a book by a guy named Corey, can't remember his name.
The definitive book on the symbol, the fasci, which is the bundle of sticks with the axe, was written by a guy who went to Oxford who happened to be a guitar player in the band The Lemonheads, if you can imagine.
Right.
Okay.
Okay.
But my analysis after looking at that book, my analysis of what the fasci really means is that it's the symbol that represents the monopoly on violence.
And my thesis at this point, in the last couple of days, I wrote an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to kind of fix the problems that we have right now.
If I might not be so bold.
But it occurred to me that we talk about money being the thing that controls the world.
And E. Michael Jones makes a great argument in his book, Bare and Metal, that if you don't have a moral money system, it doesn't really matter what kind of money system you have because you're going to wind up with an oligarchy or a totalitarian government if you don't have morals attached to it.
And so I made an attempt, an amoral way of instilling morality into the Constitution of the United States.
Oh, tell me your solution.
Well, so my thesis is that there's two things that the oligarchy uses in order to control us.
One is a monopoly on violence.
People will say money, but I think it's a monopoly on violence and epistemology.
And I think that money is a form of epistemology.
That is getting people to believe that gold is worth this or silver is worth that or a dollar or a pound is worth this.
This is all magic, right?
This is all epistemological magic.
And so you have to go to the core.
You have to go to the root of what the problem is.
And so the problem with the Constitution of the United States of America is there's two major problems with it.
One is that it doesn't address transparency and it doesn't address accountability in a way that is satisfactory to the ideals of a democratic republic.
And so going back to the control grid that Melania Trump was kicking off in the UN, where they want to put in this, they want to put in this blockchain-based management and control system to control every human being on the planet, every dollar that we spend, every calorie that we eat, every calorie that we expend.
They want to be able to control all of that.
And I said, great.
Okay.
Let's turn this around and point it at the oligarchs too, because there's two things that are missing right now in all constitutions.
I don't care what country you're in.
Okay.
Transparency and accountability.
Blockchain would be the ultimate technology for determining who owns what, meaning who owns what share of stock, who owns the control of the United States Federal Reserve or the Bank of England.
I'd love to know.
Yeah.
I think everyone would love to know.
Okay.
And the thing about blockchain is that you could use it to pierce the veil of things like holding companies and limited liability companies and shell companies, cutouts, front men, because it would allow you to ultimately determine who owns what on a granular level.
Part of my amendment creates something called a concert group, because one of the ways that the oligarchs get around having people know who they are is they use things like BlackRock mechanisms like BlackRock,
where they're accumulating the votes of a bunch of individual people, or they're creating Jeffrey Epstein-inspired groups where you've got four or five different people who seem unrelated, right?
Who are all putting money in or controlling the board of directors of a certain company in order to move that company into a specific direction.
So I call those things concert groups.
These things are algorithmically trivial to be able to determine if you're tracking all of the ownership stakes in all of the corporations and foundations, public and private.
If you're tracking all of that stuff with blockchain, then insinuating coordination becomes a really kind of trivial programmatic problem to solve.
Yeah.
It's not very hard.
It's really going to happen, Peter, this thing.
It's the same technology that you would use for Amazon to determine if you were looking at this product that you might like that product.
Okay.
It's called collaborative filtering.
Okay.
So if you apply collaborative filtering to insider trading, you're going to be able to find the insider traders like that.
Okay.
You can replace all of those investigators at the Security and Exchange Commission with an algorithm.
Okay.
So the second part is the second part is what did I say?
I have the idea in my head.
Accountability.
Accountability.
And so the idea is that you could also put the promises that politicians make on the blockchain.
Okay.
And you could have a stochastic election.
Stochastic is just a computer term for random because it turns out that computers are actually really bad at doing random numbers.
They're so ordered that randomness is anathema to them and they have a problem.
So you have, so there are companies that like do encryption keys and stuff.
And the way that they come up with the randomness is that they have a wall of lava lamps, right?
And they've got a camera.
They have cameras aimed at the lava lamps that are measuring the pixels.
And this is the way that they come up with random number generators is by analyzing the wax floating in the hot water.
So this is called stochastic.
So there's a stochastic election.
And we can come up with the parameters for a stochastic election.
But the thing about politicians is that if you give them a calendar, like the way that we do it in the United States is that we have an election every four years or every two years.
The way that you do it in the UK is that if the government can't come to a decision, then the prime minister can have an election.
In my frame, you'd have a stochastic election series where people would be only asked one question, which is, did the politician keep their promise or not?
The Phrygian Cap of Liberty00:05:21
And I propose an incredibly draconian solution that's based on something that Paul Merlucky, who's somebody that I've met and talked to before, I took his picture, came up with, which was he came up with a VR helmet that has three explosive charges in it.
So if you get killed in a video game, you actually get killed in real life.
So I was thinking, well, isn't that the appropriate crown?
Because again, in my semiotic analysis, you've got the crown of the king of England, Charles.
What does that crown mean?
Right?
Well, in the inside, it's got a Phrygian cap.
The inside of the crown is a cap, and it's a Phrygian cap.
And again, this goes back to the cults, the Phoenician cults, okay?
Phrygia is actually in Anatolia.
Anatolia is next to the Levant.
And so you've got, and by the way, I think that a Phrygian cap, which is the French cap in the French Revolution, it's on the seal of the Senate of the United States of America and the seal of the United States Army.
It's on the seals of dozens of American states and dozens of countries.
And so you've got this Phrygian cap.
I think that the Phrygian cap is a foreskin.
I think it is the.
Okay.
Okay, which takes us back to the Old Testament.
Why are they always circumcising people?
What is that all about?
What is castration all about?
What is circumcision all about?
But anyway, you've got these Phrygian caps, right?
So crowns, royal crowns, European crowns have a Phrygian cap inside a golden cage.
What does that represent?
Well, the golden cage is the oligarchy, right?
Because King James II, the Stuarts believed that they served under the divine right of kings.
They believed that it was God's will that they were royal, that they were kings, right?
After the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy became subject to the oligarchy and that the king serves at the pleasure of the oligarchy.
And so the Phrygian cap represents liberty.
What does liberty mean?
Liberty means freedom that's been bestowed on you.
Okay.
If you ask 99% of Americans, I don't know about Great Britain, but if you ask 99% of Americans what the difference between the word liberty and the word freedom is, they can't tell you the difference between the word.
They don't know the difference between the word.
When I started studying this, I didn't know the difference between liberty and freedom.
Liberty is freedom that someone bestows on you.
If you are a slave owner and you free your slave, you give them this cap.
And the cap says, this person's a free person.
They've been bestowed their freedom by the empire.
Okay.
So Charles has a Phrygian cap, okay, in his crown, and then it's got a golden cage on it.
That's what the rest of the crown is.
This is Peter Duke's interpretation.
All right.
So what does that mean?
It means that Charles serves at the pleasure of the Crown Corporation, which is a city of London corporation that was put together by livery companies.
I think it's interesting that the first livery company is called the Mercers, and that some of the biggest influences in American elections lately have been the Mercers.
They were certainly taking care of Breitbart for a while.
And so, again, words have meanings.
They mean things, right?
And so the crown is actually a Phrygian cap inside a golden cage.
So this is a perfect metaphor for the way that the Windsors, their position in Great Britain.
They are freed slaves who serve at the Liberty, their liberty has been bestowed on them by the oligarchy that is the City of London Crown Corporation.
That's kind of my jaded, one-sided, biased take at it.
Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar.
I mean, or a pound.
Or a pound.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's in for a penny, in for a pound, right?
Yeah.
There was a line dispiriting and at the same time kind of right and true and actually sort of makes you more based, I think.
Where you say in your analysis of in your sort of run-up to your piece about epistemology and Christ teaching, you say that the two questions people who are awake tend to ask is, where can I, where can I?
Cooperative Game Theory in Politics00:15:19
Where can I go and how can I save my stuff?
Yeah, yeah.
And Jesus, you know, somebody came to Jesus and asked the same question and he said, give away all your stuff.
And that's why I kind of look at my losing all my stuff in the Palisades fire as a blessing because I kind of had it done for me.
You know, I got rid, all of my stuff disappeared and then I had to deal with life on those terms.
I mean, obviously I had insurance, so I could, you know, make up for that.
But those are the two questions.
And I don't think that there is any place that you can go.
I mean, my wife and I have gone through all of this.
Like we drove around to different states and we went to Arizona and Nevada and we were looking at different places that we could live.
We have many friends who moved to Nashville.
We have friends who are considering moving to Courtalene, Idaho.
I have a friend in Cordeline, Idaho says, don't move here.
You're not really running.
And it isn't because she doesn't want them to move there because it's locals only.
It's that if you think that you're going to get away from it by moving here, then that's not going to happen.
I need to close my blinds.
Hang on one second.
Oh, yeah, I was looking at that.
I was comparing the quality of the light, the light in California at 8am or whatever time it is there now.
Yeah.
And in Northamptonshire, they've allowed us to have some blue skies today, which is, they give us these occasional treatlets.
You know, yes, we're not going to give you chemtrail fog today.
You're going to get some blue just to show you what you're missing most of the time.
Well, I'm living next to a Navy base now, which is very strange for me because there's all this military action that goes on all the time.
There's hawker hunters from the 1950s that fly over my house all the time.
I have no idea why.
I think the good thing about living, you're living next to a naval base is when it all kicks off, you're going to be, you're going to have sort of people who might be able to, I don't know, save you.
I think you're right.
I want to believe that.
I want to believe that I had one catastrophic, without being hyperbolic, one catastrophic event in my life already.
Although it was funny because my wife and I, we moved into, so we're about 40 miles north of Los Angeles now.
And we found this lovely little apartment and it's on the beach and we got a dog and he's walking around here someplace.
And we had no furniture.
Everything that we owned fit in the truck.
So we ordered a bunch of furniture, but it was going to take a few days to get here.
So we got an air mattress.
And so we're living in this apartment.
We've got no furniture and we're sleeping on an air mattress.
And we get a tsunami warning.
Yeah, but you can float off on the air mattress, right?
Right, exactly.
That was the right piece of furniture to have.
Exactly.
But it was funny because one of my when the Palisades fire happened, I lived in the Santa Monica Mountains my whole life, and I was not expecting that the Los Angeles Fire Department would stand down and not show up.
But that's exactly what happened.
Okay.
So regardless of whether or not I think it was arson, there are very, very few people who think that it's arson.
But I think that it was arson.
I think it was arson on January 1st.
I think it was arson on January 7th both times.
And I lay out in several articles on my website exactly why I think that happened.
But for this story, I basically ignored all the evacuation warnings.
And I was working on a video.
I shot video of the fire of the super scoopers, the Canadian super scoopers that were coming in.
And I was working on the video.
And it wasn't until about five o'clock that I went outside and looked around and everybody was gone and noticed that there were no fire trucks.
There was no fire engines in my neighborhood.
None.
Zero.
And I thought, that's not good.
That's not good.
And at that point, that's when I thought, okay, we better get the hell out of here.
And so the nice thing I like about where I live now is that when something happens, the fire trucks show up.
We take that for granted.
It's something that I took for granted my entire life that when there's a fire, the fire department comes.
Well, because we've been trained to, there was a character called Feynman Sam, showed on children's TV.
And Feynman Sam goes and rescues cats stuck in trees.
And when your house burns down, he comes and shows up.
Yeah.
And, you know, there were hundreds of fire trucks there, but they were most of them were being platooned down on the Pacific Coast Highway in the beach parking lots.
And they weren't fighting the fires.
And there's all kinds of stories about why that happened.
I don't think it really matters at this point what the story is.
I think that it was planned.
It was planned.
Again, like Gaza was planned.
You can't look at Gaza and say they didn't plan to do this.
No, I think they storyboard it, don't they?
They storyboard it and then they make the movie.
Well, not only the story, they wore game it.
Yeah.
You know, they, again, I was a Rand kid.
My mom worked at Rand and I grew up playing these games, you know, which is another kind of thread of things that I work on.
It's funny.
I wrote a whole series of articles about Mark Burnett and game theory because, again, a random happenstance, Jeff Probst was, I was watching Survivor one night and Jeff Probst was talking about how Survivor is based on John Nash's non-cooperative game theory.
And then I was, I spent a week with a good friend of mine, Matthew Crawford, at this friend of ours' house in Nevada.
And we were talking about game theory and we were talking about two television shows in particular, Survivor, which is in its almost 50th season or something now, and The Apprentice, which are both Mark Burnett shows.
Mark Burnett is British military.
He's British military.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He was born in London, served in the Falklands, moved to Los Angeles.
And the story about him is that he was a nanny in Beverly Hills.
And then he was selling t-shirts on Venice Boardwalk.
And then he became a showrunner on the biggest show on television.
It's an interesting trajectory.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
But these shows are based on non-cooperative game theory.
Is that the same, by the way?
Is game theory different from non-cooperative game theory?
It was different for John von Neumann came up with the original game theory, which came up with things like Prisoner's Dilemma and things like that.
It's something that the Rand Corporation specialized in.
And that's why my indoctrination when I was 10 or 11 years old by a RAND mathematician who lived next door to me by happenstance was I was introduced to all of this kind of ab basically it's abstract thinking.
What you're doing is you're taking real life situations and you're figuring out what the rules would be and what the pieces would be for creating an abstraction of this real world event so that you can play it.
So you can see what the different results would be.
So that's the essence of game theory is that how do you take real life situations and then put them into a framework that would allow you to test it.
Right.
It's all about testing the situation.
And so John Nash and again, Peter Duke's first, I can't remember which leading, one of my leading indicators on epistemological warfare is that if you've got trans media saturation on a particular idea, it means that it's important to the oligarchy.
Okay.
So John Nash's non-cooperative game theory got made into a movie with Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connolly by Ron Howard and Brian Grazier.
Ron Howard always gets the kind of, I mean, he's considered a reliable set of hands to make Peter Berg, too.
There's a few of them out there who are tapped, you know.
Yeah.
And I used to know Peter Berg.
I used to hang out with Peter Berg back in the day when he was an actor.
But the idea is, is that why do they make a movie about non-cooperative game theory if non-cooperative game theory isn't an important concept for them?
Why do they use non-cooperative game theory to create the two biggest television shows in history, Survivor and The Apprentice, if it isn't really important to them?
And then you have to understand, then you have to ask yourself the question, well, why do they do that?
And so I've written articles on why I thought that Survivor was important because Survivor basically shows you what can happen in an ultimate democracy because the winner of that game is determined by a republic of the failed, you know, of the people who didn't make it to the end.
Right.
And The Apprentice is just a model for an ideal Curtis Yarvin-style totalitarian dictatorship.
Right.
And headed by Trump, who accidentally, who's also in the World Wrestling Federation Hall of Fame for something called Kfape, which led me to a different kind of game because I was in the game business for a while.
I worked for Steven Spielberg at a place called Sega Game Works.
And then I tried to stay involved in kind of the leading edge of, I wasn't really interested in the day-to-day kind of game stuff, but I was really interested in the cutting edge.
And there was this kind of game that was called an alternate reality game that was kind of big in the late 1990s.
And it occurred to me that what's going on in the news cycle right now, specifically what made me start thinking about it was the Charlie Kirk murder, is that an alternate reality game is where you create something called a rabbit hole in the real world, right?
And then you start dripping out information in this game theory.
They're called ticks as a way to control audience engagement.
And the thing is about the ticks is that they don't know what they're so complicated and kind of broad scope that one person cannot solve the problem by themselves.
They need a bunch of other people to solve the problems.
And so if you start to take a look at the Charlie Kirk event in total, like not just the Candace Owens part, not just the Ian Carroll part, not just the Kash Patel part, not, you know, if you take the whole thing in total, okay, it looks like an alternate reality game to me.
It looks like some, and, and, and the best way to kind of think about that would be like the Truman show.
There's the character that Ed Harris plays, who's kind of like the director of the show.
And it feels to me like the Charlie Kirk murder is an arc.
It's an alternate reality game that's being played.
And that doesn't mean that real people don't get killed.
It doesn't mean they did either.
No, it doesn't either.
No.
And the purpose.
So obviously that whole narrative was something that was very important for them to put out.
Yes.
And so then, and again, the epistemological frame on that is, okay, well, what is the benefit of the Charlie Kirk murder story?
Yeah.
Right.
Because you could spend the rest of your life.
People have spent their entire lives trying to figure out who killed JFK, right?
They have.
So people can do that with Charlie Kirk.
But the important part is what does the Charlie Kirk murder story create?
What are the circumstances that are different after Charlie Kirk is murdered than before Charlie Kirk was murdered?
On a kind of meta level.
Yeah.
And the answer is the short answer.
Well, I mean, I do think that the people who think that he was an existential threat to the narrative of the narrative control that was required in order to facilitate the completion of the Mideast plan,
which was to take Syria and then Iran, Wesley Clark famously said that they had plans in 2000 to take all seven of those countries.
That obviously that was going to go forward.
Charlie Kirk was a problem because he was going to create enough public sentiment that it would become very difficult for them to get away with it.
I think it's still, I mean, I think that Trump was polling at something like 17% approval last week.
Oh, right.
You know, so if Charlie Kirk was still alive, it would probably be 3%.
Right.
Perfection vs Destruction of Self00:14:55
But how do you accommodate me into this particular schemata?
Because I think he's still alive and I think the whole thing was fake.
Oh, well, that's fine.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, he may be out sitting on a sitting on a beach in Madagascar.
Do you mean that he was there as a warning to people who question the narrative?
or you know you say these things you're going to die or what um because surely surely if if the idea of of the assassination was to de well the alleged assassination was to derail opposition to uh the plans to kind of take iran and syria and so on um um
surely it would have only inflamed that particular base and made them more determined than ever to, you know, the martyred Charlie and his, you know, I think that a lot of times these things are tests.
So for example, and I didn't come up with this idea, somebody on the internet came up with it and it resonated with me that COVID was a, was not really, well, they talk about goal stacking.
When the oligarchs do these things, when they execute something like COVID, they have multiple goals that they have that they want to try to test.
Right.
And so one of the things that I think that they were trying to test primarily was what is the loyalty of the leadership infrastructure that they have in place globally.
So famously, there were a bunch of presidents of African countries.
He did Magafuli.
God rest his soul.
What a hero.
Before I die, I want to see a statue erected to John Magafuli in whatever the capital of holding a cornucopia and a swab.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, and what was it?
A guava.
Yeah, a guava and a suab, right?
I think so, yeah.
Yeah, again, but he was using, he was using Logos and Crisis and Prouse and Agape, right?
He applied those things and he got crucified for it.
But what wound up happening, so I think that COVID was a test of leadership.
And I think that the Charlie Kirk assassination, I think the fake Butler assassination, a lot of people don't remember this, but Kobe Bryant died right before COVID started.
Or did he?
Yeah.
Was he the one in the helicopter?
In the helicopter, right.
And if you follow Michael Hoffman, there's this ritual that they have, which is killing the king.
Arguably, Kobe Bryant was the king of basketball at the point that he died.
So Kobe Bryant and the helicopter pilot was Iranian.
So that always felt very ritualistic to me.
And in fact, I was friends with Ali Alexander at the time, who was I'm still friends with him.
I just haven't talked to him in a while.
And when I found out, and Kobe died within a couple of miles of where I live.
Again, I live in this interesting part of the world.
And I called Ali and I said, something big is about to happen.
And he said, why is that?
And I said, because this feels like a ritual sacrifice to me.
And within a couple of weeks, COVID started.
Is this the occult book collector guy that was a different?
No, this is no, that's Pat Moyce.
No, this is Ali Alexander was the guy who organized Stop the Steal.
But there's a writer who I follow.
I've read practically everything that he's written.
He's got a great substack.
His name is Michael Hoffman.
And he wrote a book 20 years ago called Secret Societies in Psychological Warfare.
And he talks about, and his mentor was a guy named James Shelby Downard.
And they wrote a book together called King Kill 33.
And this is where James Shelby Downard was talking about how these rituals work.
What's the blocking and tackling?
What is it that these people actually do?
And so killing a king, like killing John F. Kennedy, it turns out that there's going back to gold stacking, there's a lot of different reasons why you kill John F. Kennedy.
It's not just one reason.
Yeah, I get that.
Yeah.
So that's why they call it Camelot, so they could make him King Arthur.
Yeah.
Well, it's funny because you're mentioning Camelot because one of the rabbit holes that I've been going down the last couple of weeks, and I'm going to talk to Mrs. Heritage History later, and maybe this will come up, is that a great deal of British history has just been erased.
Yeah, There's a huge amount of it that's just been erased.
Well, so there's the Wilson and Blackett books.
Wilson and Blackett were these Welsh amateur historians who realized that there were two King Arthur's, two real King Arthur.
Right.
Or maybe more than that, I think it might have been a whole dynasty.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
What do they call Wilson and Wilson and Blackett?
Okay.
And they one of them died in a mysterious fire.
I mean, they were, they were, they were inconvenient to the as happens.
It happens, doesn't it?
It really does.
Yeah, I'm glad I'm not an original researcher.
I'm glad I'm just a kind of I flutter around like some well, yeah.
I, you know, I don't think that doing the research is dangerous.
I think becoming popular after the research, becoming popularizing your research becomes the dangerous part.
Well, I'm grateful to them because they so constrain my traffic that I'm never in any danger of reaching more than a fraction of my potential audience.
Ditto.
It's just like it's kind of tiresome, but I suppose it's slightly less tiresome than being killed.
I mean, yeah, exactly.
And I'm guessing that if you know how Substack has all of those stats that they give you for how popular your article is, mine always do this.
And then they go, meanwhile, that annoying person who writes these clickbait.
Yeah, well, sort of informed, jaunty clickbait.
Like lots of here's an in here's a subject that might interest you based on my and you think, oh, yeah, you're nice, but you're from Normi World and you're not, you're not really dealing with any things that matter.
You're just talking, you're just defining their paradigm.
Right.
Well, to me, to me, it's, it, it all boils down to the definition between knowing and thinking.
There's lots of people who like to collect ideas like a seed catalog.
I guess in Britain you call them bus spotters, right?
Or train spotters.
People who call them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
People who collect stuff and want to be the expert in that stuff, right?
As opposed to, you know, critical inquiry.
Like I look at, you know, jumping back to Christianity for a second, I look at that process of taking logos, putting it on the cross of discernment, practicing prouse and in the direction of agape.
When you complete all of that, you're christened.
But what has happened?
What has happened is that your old belief has died and become resurrected and reborn as a new belief.
Something that you believed before the process started isn't there and has been replaced by something else after the process is complete.
Well, this is an ongoing thing.
This doesn't happen once.
This is a mindset, you know.
Yes.
Which is a nominalization.
I probably shouldn't call it a mindset.
I should probably call it a mind.
Mindset is a nominalization.
It's a process, right?
That we use in order to be able to constantly grow and make our become more perfect.
The Constitution is framed as a more perfect union.
And what Jesus is giving you the handbook to do is to become a more perfect person.
Did you?
No reason why you should, but I did this podcast the other day with Sir Eskinor, who rather bummed me out by laying this really bad trip version of Jesus on me.
So I mean, I had him on the podcast because Sir Eskinor is clearly, He's properly red-pilled or indeed black pilled, and he sees through all the conspiracies and stuff.
But he was saying, he started off the podcast by saying, well, I think it's even worse than you think.
I think that what people like you and me and you, Peter, are doing, it's we do, we do it because they find it useful that we do this stuff.
They want us to do this stuff.
And it's all part of the transition from the kind of the world of Satan to the world, sort of the Luciferian backlash, which is going to be the false light of the so we're meant to be putting all this horror stuff out there about adrenochrome.
And I think he's partially correct, but part of the reason that I do write my, you know, it's my motivation for writing the linguistic Christianity thing.
And it's also my motivation for putting it into as many different formats as I can.
So for people who read, I write it.
For people who listen, I do a podcast.
For people who want to watch a video, I try to make a video.
And so the reason I do that is because to his point, if the only thing that you're doing is, and I'm sorry, my dog is dropping a ball at my feet.
Oh, I'm good.
Well, I'm trying to talk about it.
He's a good, loyal, well-trained dog.
That's good.
Yes.
Yes, Quigley.
Good boy.
Quigley.
Good boy.
Quigley.
Sap it.
Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is that people have accused me of being blackpilled because I'm figuring all of these things out.
Or I think I'm figuring these things out.
And the issue is, what do you do about it, right?
To your other guests' concern.
And I think that that's part and parcel.
I think that part of the reason that I've really tried to figure out how to communicate my Christian epistemology message in the format that I have is because there is good news.
The good news is that the only thing that is required in order to overturn the oligarchic control on the planet is to understand that we're in an epistemological war and that Jesus gave us tools for overcoming the epistemological war.
Okay.
And we all have it in us.
The kingdom of God is in us.
Okay.
They can't take it away from us.
Okay.
They can't take they can't take our ability to use Logos, Crisis, Prouse, and Agape.
They can't take that away from us.
We all have it.
Okay.
The only thing that we need in order to be able to utilize it is to realize that we do have it.
And this is like the lesson of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy at the end of the Wizard of Oz, the wizard says, you've always had it.
All you have to do is click your heels three times and say there's no place like home.
Okay.
That's the truth.
We all have the ability to do this, but we have to be able to wake up to that idea.
I guess Buddha means to wake up, right?
I haven't researched that, but somebody told me once that Buddhism is to be awakened, right?
Yeah, drop an enormous subject in at the end of the podcast.
Yeah, and that I don't know that I don't, honestly, I don't know a lot about.
I have practiced Zen, though.
I read Zen and the Bart book, Zen and the Art of Archery, and I actually used that as a handbook to quash my ego at one point.
Oh, well done.
Did it work?
Yeah, it was great.
It's great.
I didn't use archery, though.
I used a batting cage.
So, have you ever read Harrigal, Zen and the Art of Archery?
No.
It's a short book.
It's a very short book.
Basically, he was a German philosopher and he went to Japan to learn how to practice Zen.
And Zen is about controlling your own ego.
And the idea is that there is a perfect way to do the tea ceremony.
There is a perfect way to arrange flowers.
There is a perfect way to shoot a bow and arrow.
And that it's about understanding that there's a method and that by quashing your ego, you can get closer to that method.
So it's similar to Christianity in that it's about perfection of the self.
I differ from the Eschaton, from the telos of the Eastern religions, because I believe that Eastern religions are ultimately about the destruction of the self, and Christianity is about the perfection of the self.
That's a nice distinction.
I get that from, I didn't make that up.
It comes from a philosopher named Wolfgang Smith, who it breaks my heart to find out that I lived within a few miles of him for the last 20 years of his life, and he just passed away a couple of years ago.
And I didn't really discover him until a couple of years ago.
Eastern Religions and the Self00:03:02
I've had similar problems with potential podcast guests.
They die on me before I can get to them.
Yeah.
Anyway, but Smith studied, he studied the Vedas for most of his life, and his wife was a Catholic.
And he came to the ultimate conclusion that Eastern religions are about the destruction of the self.
The metaphor that they use is that your consciousness melds with the one the same way that a drop of water goes into the ocean, which is kind of antithetical to Christianity.
And it is what I think makes Christianity a unique worldview in that it really is about the perfection of the self.
It's not about the destruction of the self.
Yeah.
To what end?
Yes.
I think that's the question.
That is the question, isn't it?
That is that.
Maybe that's how we start the next podcast.
Right.
Yeah.
And that's a good way to end this one.
Because, yeah, exactly.
Well, thank you.
Thank you, Peter.
That's great.
I'm looking forward to my cup of tea now as my reward for a podcast.
Well, well, well done.
I've enjoyed this very much.
Well, thank you very much for asking me such thoughtful questions.
And I appreciate the time and the energy that you put into figuring stuff out.
And I'm looking forward to doing it again.
It'll be fun.
Just remind people where we can find you.
Right.
The Duke Report, if you go to the DukeReport.com, it will take you to my substack, which is thedukereport.substack.com.
And that's where I publish my articles.
And then I have a collection of books.
So in my research adventures, I've got almost 900 books now on a website called dukereportbooks.com, where you can find 1,500-word summaries of 800 or 900 of the most important books that I think you could take a look at if you're trying to actually figure out what's really going on.
For many of the books, I have half an hour podcasts.
So if you just scroll to the bottom of the book page, you'll find a podcast that I create using a Google application called Notebook LM.
For over 300 of the books, I've created six to eight minute video explainers.
And these are all at dukereportbooks.com.
You can also find links to find the books.
Many of the books are out of print, and many of the books are difficult to find.
And so I provide links for how you can find every different version of those books.
So those are the two main places that you can interact with me.
And I try to do a podcast once a week.
And all of the links to all of those things you can find at Duke Report.
Supporting the Podcast Mission00:01:22
I think you're definitely going to go to heaven for all your work, Peter.
You've done some, you know, you're doing the Lord's work, I would say.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
It's my intent to be of service.
So that's great.
Everyone, obviously you've enjoyed this podcast.
How could you not?
So do, those of you who support me financially, thank you.
You're all the difference between me starving or me surviving.
And those of you who enjoy my stuff and want to support me, you're basically doing it because you like what I do and you will feel better about yourself.
You get my stuff for free anyway.
I'm not going to wheedle and just like grovel and come up with catchy slogans like I know some people do.
And they have worked out all these methods to part you and your money.
No, you don't have to do it at all.
You're only doing it because you like me and you like what I do.
That's the only reason.
You don't have to, but those of you who do, I really appreciate it.