All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2022 - Know More News - Adam Green
01:14:02
The Tech Threat & the Jesus Hoax | Know More News LIVE feat. David Skrbina PhD
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to No More News Live.
I am your host, Adam Green.
Thank you all for joining me today, February, Thursday, February 24th, 2022.
I have an excellent guest for you guys today.
I've had him booked for a few weeks, and we're going to be discussing the problem with technology in his book, The Jesus Hoax.
Returning to the show is professor of philosophy, David Scribina, PhD, author of The Jesus Hoax.
He was back on the show almost a year ago for our video, The Jesus Hoax to Deceive the Gentiles.
And combined between BitChute and Odyssey, it got 27,000 views.
And since then, I've been doing a ton of videos on the Christian deception.
Thanks for coming back on the show.
Thanks for your time.
I look forward to hearing more about the tech this time as well.
David Scribina, thanks for being here.
Yeah, very good.
Thanks, Adam.
Glad to be back.
So, first question is, it's been almost a year since you were on.
You also had this debate on MythVision, where you debated James S. Valiant on if it's a Roman conspiracy or a Jewish conspiracy.
We've been in contact a little bit.
I sent you some of my debates I've had, like with Joe Atwell and others.
Where do you think is the state of the Jesus hoax theory in the three years since you published your book back in 2019?
Well, I think it's holding up very well, actually.
I mean, you know, I've published a couple of follow-up discussions online.
I've had a number of podcasts with yourself and other related shows.
50,000 views two years ago on MythVision here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's very good.
So how has it been received?
What has the feedback been?
What's your mindset on the theory?
Well, right.
So, I mean, you get a lot of support from people because I think they recognize that this is a view that's not really discussed, even among the so-called Jesus mythicists who are sort of trying to argue that there's something mythological about the Jesus character, but they never really quite are able to go into the Jewish aspect.
And so they always kind of shy away from these sensitive kind of issues, you know, for various reasons.
And they really don't want to delve into the possibility that there is a kind of a Jewish plot behind a lot of this original story of Christianity.
A lot of it originates with Paul, who was, of course, a Jew from Tarsus.
And, you know, the New Testament writers were, as far as we know, were all Jews.
And we're writing basically kind of a Jewish mythology, trying to convince a pagan audience or a Gentile audience of this sort of pro-Jewish ideology as a way to undermine support for Rome, who was the hated enemy of the Jews at the time.
So, I mean, it's all a fairly coherent and illogical story.
It's an obvious account of how things happened.
You get a lot of, like I say, you get a lot of support from people.
You get some people who have very sort of sensitive reactions because it feels like it's undermining the Christian story, which in a sense it is.
You know, you get people like the guys like Robert Price and Richard Carrier and so forth who don't really want to touch on the sensitive Jewish angle of things.
So they sort of dance around the issues.
You get guys like Atwell who want to turn the story around and say, no, no, it was really a Roman plot, which really is lacking in evidence.
It goes against the prima facie argument that says, why would they do this to themselves?
I mean, you know, so when you look at competing theories, there's really, as far as I can tell, there's really no better alternative.
I think people realize the intrinsic validity of this kind of an argument.
And I think it's been holding up very well.
Like I say, in fact, I mentioned that I'm working on a kind of a revised edition.
So I've been collecting material for a couple of years.
I hope to have that up later this year, have a second revised edition of the Jesus Hoax book.
So we'll see how that's received.
Oh, well, I look forward to that.
You know, I had Carrier on about a month ago, and he basically agreed with the basic thesis that Christianity is a Jewish construct, and it's the fake fulfillment of fulfilling the prophecy of the Old Testament to have a rejected, suffering Messiah figure that would go to the Gentiles and get their obedience and their fear.
And that's why I think the Roman conspiracy is false, is because Paul targeted Gentiles.
He was the apostle to the Gentiles.
And that's the subtitle of your book: How St. Paul's Cabal Fooled the World for 2,000 Years.
And then even the Gospels were targeting the Gentiles.
Go out into the Gentiles was the end of Mark, right?
So, and that's who adopted it.
It's always been Judaism to resist Christianity as if it's idol worship.
So it didn't really work.
It was an abject failure, as I've heard you say.
Yeah, of course, right?
I mean, so the mainstream Jews, the Orthodox Jews, oppose the whole story.
They oppose the whole Christian ideology, the fact that a Savior had come to come to earth to save anyone but the Jews.
I mean, this was antithetical to the Orthodox Jewish elite at the time, even today.
So, of course, they have no intrinsic reason to support that story.
They've never been on the side of the Gentiles.
They've always kind of viewed other people as their enemies or their opponents.
They've always sought to keep them in their place, to exploit them where necessary.
So there was, you know, no love loss there for the non-Jewish masses, if you will.
So, you know, I think it forms a pretty coherent and consistent story, actually.
And the idea that the prophesied Jewish Messiah was meant to conquer the Gentiles and subjugate the world and conquer the world for Zion as the Jewish king and redeemer.
And then they somehow, with such a win, they convince the Gentiles to get upset that they rejected this Messiah that was meant to rule over them.
And then you feel like it's a win that you get to be saved now.
But really, the idea of being saved is reigning over the Gentiles.
That's literally what Paul says, is the Messiah will reign over the Gentiles.
Question, do you think that Christianity has ultimately benefited Judaism?
Well, it's done very well in 2,000 years, right?
So it's gone from kind of a defeated and dispersed tribe, if you look back 2,000 years ago, to a position of real dominance, right, in the world today, certainly in the Western world.
So you could argue in the long run, in the very large picture, Judaism and Jews in particular have really profited from a West that bought into the Christian mythology that was constructed by Jews.
So in a sense that they really have profited from it, it has been good for them.
I mean, it's a little bit hard to take a contrary stance and say, well, how would have history played out if there had never been any Paul, if there was never a Christian mythology was ever constructed?
What would have happened?
What if there was never any Roman Empire, you know, and they never destroyed the temple?
I mean, there's all kinds of counterfactuals that, yeah, it's really, it's just pure speculation, right?
How those other variations of history could have turned out.
But certainly as things did turn out, you know, the Christian West, so to speak, even though in a way it was kind of, you know, offering resistance to Jews throughout the Middle Ages in Europe and with the Catholic Church, you know, it was never really kind of a fatal resistance.
It was never really a definitive kind of resistance.
And it really allowed them to continue to exist.
It allowed them to continue to do business in Europe, to have financial Influence to have influence with the monarchies throughout Europe and in the end to prosper, like I say, to a very high degree.
So it would be really hard to make the case that it's somehow been bad for Judaism or bad for Jews, the Christianized West, I think.
In fact, as I argue, even the persecution ultimately benefits them because it fulfills their narrative of the chosen people that will go into exile and be persecuted by the Gentiles.
The Esau-Jacob story completely plays out.
Something else you touched on that they, in fact, preserved Judaism.
Judaism might not exist if it weren't for Christianity.
And in a way, Christianity has to preserve Judaism because they believe that in the end, the Jews will ultimately have to convert and follow Jesus.
So that means there has to be Jews around.
So whereas all of the other pagan gods and pagan religions were erased and replaced by Christianity and Islam, Judaism is essentially stronger than ever.
I don't think you think that's by accident or coincidence?
Well, again, you're right.
It's because it's built into the Christian story, right?
So the Christians are basically accepting the Jewish worldview.
They're accepting the Old Testament, which is the Jewish Bible.
They're accepting the integrity of Paul and his fellow Jews who constructed the Gospels.
And so they become part of that narrative, right?
So the extent that Christians need those people, need that character, those characters as part of the Christian story, then in a sense, it preserves and sustains Judaism through a much larger mass of people who consider themselves Christians.
So in that sense, Judaism did find a way to sustain and propagate its ideas through the non-Jewish masses.
So it is a kind of a striking story in that sense.
Do you feel like Islam could be a similar creation story, that it was almost set up to make the Arab world believe in the Abrahamic myths as well?
Well, that's a good question, right?
So I've heard people make that sort of claim that there's a kind of a Muhammad hoax or something, right?
Where somebody really constructed a comparable story that became Islam.
So, yeah, I guess, I mean, it's an interesting parallel.
Personally, I haven't researched it enough to really sort of be able to give a definitive position on that one way or the other.
But, you know, and I know I have close friends and colleagues who are committed Muslims, and I know they believe deeply in the story.
But there are some striking parallels.
I mean, it's kind of the vagueness of the character Muhammad himself and the shaky origins of his writings and how his sayings were sort of transcribed on scraps of paper and palm leaves, and they were compiled years later, and those became the Quran.
So you get some very questionable early stories about the origins of the Quran and Islam itself, which suggests that there was something kind of funny, something unknown and not widely understood about the origins of Islam.
So, yeah, I guess I wouldn't put it in the realm of impossibility, but like I say, it would take a lot more research to be able to give a definitive answer on the case of Islam.
I find it very suspicious that the Talmud likens the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son with Hagar, the concubine or the slave, the handmaiden.
And Ishmael, they believe in the Talmud that Ishmael is the Arabs, and then the Muslims adopted that belief.
I find that a little suspicious and convenient that they took up the role that the Talmud has of them after the fact that the Talmud was out, also.
And the Christianity is likened to Esau.
They're likened to Ishmael.
They even talk about in the end times they're going to go to war with one another, and that's what's going to usher in the messianic age.
And we kind of see it happening.
Yeah, that's true.
But, you know, I mean, Islam has sort of been more of an implacable foe of Judaism, kind of, I think, from the origins as well.
So there's a little more of an intrinsic belligerence there that would be, it's kind of a twist on the story, I think, that would make it different from the Christian variation.
So Judaism views Islam.
Put that all in context, right?
Judaism views Islam as Noahide compliant because they believe in the oneness of God.
They don't agree with it completely, obviously, but they do kind of like it in a way better than Christian, in some ways, more than Christianity.
And Jews have lived pretty comfortably in Muslim countries throughout history, in many situations as well.
Better than Christianity, you could argue, which is the next question.
In your book, you end it with kind of responding to objections that people may have, which I really like that tactic.
And you've seen lots of comments, and I'm sure you've heard the counterpoints that people try to use to dismiss us.
I have a few here that I wanted to go over that I get a lot when I talk about this.
And they say, if Jesus was made up, then why do Jews have to hate?
Why do Jews hate Jesus so much if they created him as a hoax?
Yeah.
So there was division within the early Jewish groups, right?
So you had Paul, who was a member of the Jewish elite, and he creates a story of a Jewish Savior.
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was the Savior who came to save humanity.
And the Jewish elite said, no, no, the Savior is here to save the Jews, and he's going to be a conqueror, and he's going to have no interest in the Gentile masses.
And so Paul takes that sort of ancient story, puts a twist on it, and says, no, Jesus is here.
He's the rabbi.
He's going to save the whole world, including the Gentiles, who the Jews have never liked.
They were their enemies.
And so there was a division early on.
And you see this in the actual stories in the Gospels where Paul is getting resistance from his fellow Jews to his story that he constructed, even as he's getting resistance from the Romans and the pagans who are sort of opposed to this monotheistic religion that he's pushing on people.
So there's an intrinsic competition there between the Jews and this Christian story at the very start.
Later on in time, I think it's because the Christians who adopt this Christian story of Jesus, the rabbi, again, there's this implacable hatred for many of these, particularly the Orthodox Jews, for the Gentile masses.
And anything that's their beliefs that they view as their story that they take to heart is going to cause opposition within the Jewish elite.
So, you know, I think that's so they see that as a kind of a conflict, right?
So on the one hand, the Jews want to believe, I should say, they want to see the Gentile masses be as cooperative and sort of, you know, sheep-like as they can, because that makes them maximally exploitable and maximally.
I mean, put to the maximum use for the Jewish purposes.
So in a sense, they like the story, but they don't like the people themselves.
They have no interest in the people themselves.
They're not really worried about their well-being.
And they're really there to be an exploited mass of people.
So you get this intrinsic kind of conflict within the story.
And I think that's why the Jews have never really would have liked the Gentile masses.
Under no conditions would they have.
And they certainly don't have any love loss for the Christians, even if they can see a benefit to the Christian story being popularized.
And another question I often get is: if Paul, who was a Jew, created Christianity and targeted the Gentiles, and whoever wrote the Gospels, same story, why would they make Christianity anti-Semitic if they were the ones creating it?
Well, right, because you're building in this conflict where Paul is fighting against the elite Jews.
And so you get this, you see these in the stories in the Gospels where they're saying, you know, these Orthodox Jews, they're fighting us, they're opposing us, they're...
Which is part of this, becomes part of the narrative.
And I think that gets built into that Christian story because Paul and his small band of followers were in direct opposition to the wishes of the elite Jews of the time.
So it's not that they hated their fellow Jews.
They were actually trying to save their fellow Jews, and they could create a story that the other Jews could not buy into.
So you get this tension in these Christian stories, right?
I don't know that it's intrinsically anti-Semitic.
It's just that there's this.
Well, they say that they killed Jesus.
They killed God.
And definitely it was very easily interpreted to be anti-Semitic through history.
Yeah, right.
I mean, there's always this debate.
I mean, nobody's really...
But did it backfire?
Yeah.
To a degree, because it's like it's a little anti-Semitic, but it ultimately benefits them because it's got the Gentiles worshiping a Jewish Messiah and the God of Israel that chose them.
Yeah, I think that's it.
I mean, even in the New Testament stories about who, you know, there's always a debate about who actually killed Jesus, right?
I mean, was it Pontius Pilate?
Was it the Jewish crowd who selected him over Barabbas, right?
I mean, you know, of course, the Romans had ultimate authority, so it was they who were in charge, in a sense, were really responsible for the crucifixion.
I actually believe there was a real crucifixion.
I think Jesus probably was a historical person.
He was probably an anti-Roman, a rabble-rousing rabbi who got in trouble with the authorities and actually got crucified by actual Roman authorities.
I think that's probably the best explanation for how the hoax got started.
I think it comes, sorry to interrupt, but I just want to interject right there.
I feel like it comes from the lore of the Old Testament about the suffering Messiah who will be pierced.
How in Zechariah it says he'll be pierced, and that's a common theme we see all throughout the Old and the New Testament.
So I think also like being hung on a pole like Haman in the Purim story, I feel like it's kind of a retelling of that, that that's how the suffering Messiah character would die.
One that's hung on a pole is cursed, like it says.
So just I disagree there.
I don't think there was an actual person.
I think it's the whole thing is made up fake prophecies that they derived from secretly decoding the mysteries of the Torah.
Well, you're right in the sense that they're drawn from themes and lines and passages from the Old Testament.
So you can take those and you can construct a crucifixion story.
But on the other hand, there was actual crucifixions going on of people who were resisting to Rome.
That was the crucifixion was a typical punishment for political resistors and revolutionaries.
And of course, my argument is that a hoax really works best with a kernel of truth.
So it doesn't really probably not the best hoax story to completely make up this whole thing that happened only a few years in the past, as far as we can tell.
So I think it's a much more plausible hoax if you can base it on an actual person who really existed, was really crucified, and then play the story up from there.
Yeah, there was also a Jesus, I think Jesus Ben Stada that is talked about in the Talmud that was actually in like, I think it was like 70 BC.
Right?
So there's other Jesuses as well that it could have been, or Jesus-like characters that it could have been based on.
And even if there was a kernel of truth at the middle, like the Pilate story of the crucifixion with Barabbas, that's made up and allegorical based off Yom Kippur and the goats.
So there could be a kernel of truth, but all the myths and the lore is all made up.
So it's kind of irrelevant if there was actually a Jesus or not, because it wasn't the Jesus that we have written about, basically.
You agree with that?
Well, right.
Exactly right.
And, you know, I've made the point too.
I mean, I tend to think there was, but it doesn't really affect the story, right?
I mean, I still think it was a constructed story.
It was still basically a hoax.
I mean, we can sort of debate about sort of which aspects of it came to be, and is there any real kernel of truth there?
Well, let's look for the kernel of truth.
Let's dig into the kernel of truth a little bit.
You say that it's Paul, but I'm sure in the book you say that you're not sure.
Paul didn't necessarily start it, but he did, you know, just come up with a new version or something.
It looks like Paul, before Paul, there was Cephas.
There was Peter that had this vision of Jesus.
And this is where the original Jesus, I think, came from was just having visions of seeing secrets in the Torah and coming up with a new Kabbalistic story almost, a midrash or something.
But there was Philo before that came up with the Logos concept.
There was very likely other Gnostic, pre-Christian Gnostic sects.
So the kernel of truth could have come originally from, or the whole story could have come from like a mythical logos-like character, right?
Because Philo was writing about that in, I believe, the 30s.
He even called it Jesus.
Have you seen that?
He quotes Zechariah and says it's Yeshua, the Joshua, the high priest, is the Messiah in the Logos.
So this isn't Philo.
No, I have not actually seen that in the writings of Philo.
So that would be an interesting connection for sure.
So your thoughts on where Paul came up with his Christianity?
Yeah, exactly.
So I mean, I think he's drawing from, I think he's drawing from these earlier traditions, right?
If he's drawing from Philo, Philo in turn was drawing from the ancient Greek philosophers.
I mean, Philo didn't invent the Logos.
I mean, this comes from Heraclitus, which was, you know, 400 years prior to his time.
So these guys are drawing on older philosophical and mythological ideas.
I mean, even the idea of a demigod, which comes from Homer, it's, you know, this is 800 BC.
So the idea that a demigod comes to earth in human form is there fighting on the side of the good guys.
I mean, these are really very ancient mythological themes of the half-man, the half-God who has a, you know, a God who impregnates a woman and gives birth to a hero.
I mean, these are really old, multi-hundred-year-old themes at that time that these guys are writing.
So Paul has access to philosophical intellectual history.
He's got access to popular mythology.
He knows the Old Testament.
So he has many, many threads to draw from.
And if he could tie that to an actual Jesus rabbi who was a revolutionary, kind of a rabble-rouser, so much the better.
If that wasn't the case, then he still has the material he needs to construct a story.
So I think there's many different ways that we can think of those elements coming together.
Right.
Let's do a couple super chats and see if we have questions here.
Liam T. Jarrett with 22 says, out 22, that's funny.
Did you see the 222 stuff that was the other day?
Biden came out at 222 on February 2nd, 2022.
It had the Gemachria people going crazy.
He says, out here supporting, y'all should support two.
Run amongst us.
Shekels for the cause.
Thank you.
We have Ali Baba says, may they convince the Romans the same way they convince Americans into honoring Noahide laws.
Yes, they definitely did.
Christianity subsumed the Roman Empire.
You write about that in the book, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, the downfall.
Ali Baba again says, Arabs have enormously benefited from taking up Ishmael's identity.
Now most of the Muslim world holds them in higher esteem than non-Arabs.
Yes, it is a little convenient.
And oh, I had another question.
What was I going to say?
Oh, your thoughts on the modern-day Christians, the apocalyptic end times, like Armageddon rapture fanatics.
Your thoughts on that and the Jesus hoax?
Well, right.
So you've got people who really bought into the whole mythology.
So they're Taking all the mythology for literal truth.
They're taking the words in the Bible for literal truth.
And yeah, I mean, anytime you accept a kind of a mythological story as fact or as reality, you're bound to end up in a kind of very strange place.
So I think we have, yeah, we have Zionist Christians, we have fundamentalist Christians who really have far too much commitment to this mythological story as fact and reality.
And, you know, they're expecting things to happen that draw from these crazy Jewish mythologies, you know, that there's no way in heck those things are going to actually come to play, right?
So they're going to be, they've been repeatedly disappointed over the centuries, and they can always project into the future because you have an indefinite future when things are going to happen.
So they just keep projecting their wishes into the future.
And yeah, it's a kind of a sad situation, frankly.
Yeah, like, you know, here's a little example.
Look at this story here.
This news tweeted out the other day by the Prime Minister of Israel getting visited by APEC when the delegation of Democratic members and the Republicans were just over there too.
They're all putting out the same tweet.
Want to reaffirm our unequivocal support for our greatest ally, Israel.
And this is the Republicans, it's because they're Christians.
And there's Christian organizations like the Family from Netflix, the Council for National Policy that was founded by Tim LaHaye, the rapture fanatic behind the Left Behind.
Have you seen the Left Behind movie by Tim LaHaye?
I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it.
Oh, it is outrageous what these people believe.
Like guys like Pompeo, who's tweeting out every day, you know, how he stands with Israel, and they literally believe that they're chosen by God and that at the end times, wars has to commence in order for Jesus to return and save the day.
I mean, how wild is it?
You're a philosophy professor.
How amazing is it to you that half the world believes in these myths still?
Yeah, well, it is kind of stunning.
I mean, you'd like to believe that people put some kind of faith in rationality and intellectual integrity and objective facts and these kind of things, right?
And yet you seem to have people who buy into this mythology really hook line and sinker.
But I guess I'm always, you know, you're always sort of torn between, particularly for political people, because it's so skewed by the money, right?
We know how much money comes from the Jewish lobby.
It's something like half of the funding for the Democrats.
It's a quarter at least for the Republicans, more in some cases.
So, you know, even when they say these crazy words and we're totally committed to Israel and there's no daylight between us and our best allies, you know, you don't never really know how much of that is really kind of ideological belief and how much that's just money speaking.
Like, hey, we're funding you and you're going to get up there and you're going to push the pro-Israel line no matter what.
So it's really hard to tell where these guys are coming from, unfortunately.
Check out this clip.
Have you seen this Till Kingdom Come BBC documentary?
No, I haven't.
Okay, watch this.
Just a short clip, minute long.
Yep.
Yep.
Yassi Dagan, the head of the Regional Council of Samaria, he came to realize Christian politicians who act on faith could be very influential and ideology.
Father, I pray for each man and woman in this room to allow you.
Republican caucus, the largest in Congress.
Christian.
They really want that all the state of Israel will be just nine miles.
And we, Jewish people in We need your help with your policy.
We have the same mission.
So you got this thing where settlers come up to the hill and lobby.
And these are hard-line extremist settlers, joyfully meeting with members of Congress, talking about how the way to peace is through normalizing settlements.
Did you see that?
Did you see the translation at the bottom?
You read them Bible verses, the congressman, they say, you ask for the help, they say whatever you need, it's amazing, and laughs.
What do you think about that?
Yeah, I know.
I mean, it's kind of hard to know what to think, right?
I mean, either they're so deluded about the reality of the world, or they're so saturated by the Jewish money.
Or probably it's both, right?
I mean, if you were pushing the Jewish cause, you would want somebody who was both willing to take your cash and who had some kind of ideological commitment to your basic worldview.
Yeah, they could just promote, they can promote sincere believers that have fallen for the Christian propaganda.
Yeah, exactly, right?
So they can select those guys and push them out in front and give them a prominent role.
But the risk is, you know, that these guys just sound a little bit too crazy.
I mean, they're just like a little bit too irrational.
And I could imagine there's a lot of tension going on.
Like, you know, how fringy can we push these people into positions of prominence and influence when they're so gullible in terms of buying in completely to these stories and they end up sounding just implementing public policy.
There's probably a kind of a balancing act going on, right?
Between wanting really, really ideological supporters, but you want somebody who's got their brain cells functioning where they can actually operate in a kind of rational and objective way.
All right, I got two more super chats, and then we're going to segue into tech, which I'm really looking forward to hearing about.
We got $5 from Daily Greenery.
He says, I have asked a few Christians, aside from not believing in Jesus, they disagree with Stoicism and they can't offer an answer.
Stoics taught against effeminate behavior, adultery, and other Christian staples.
Do you believe a pre-dating philosophy is required for us to get beyond the current state?
Pre-dating philosophy.
So like a philosophical replacement for Christianity.
Is that what they're asking?
That's a good question.
And he sent it twice, probably on accident.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Right.
Because some people have said, well, look, you know, you need a basic kind of religious or a philosophical worldview, and we have the Christian story, and it's relatively benign, at least on the surface.
And you can't just throw it out because you have to have some kind of story, right?
And even Nietzsche made a big deal about this.
He said, you know, people will believe in the craziest worldview rather than have none at all.
So I guess you need to offer some kind of proposals and some kind of options for people to have a competing or a different worldview.
And I've been a big proponent of the Greeks, right?
Ancient Greek philosophy.
So you look at what was accomplished in pre-Christian Greece.
Obviously, go back to the time of Plato and Socrates were talking 400, 500 BC.
And they developed very comprehensive, very foundational worldviews that had nothing to do with Jews and Christians and anything else because it was hundreds of years before that time.
So Stoicism draws a little bit from that.
Epicureanism draws a little bit from that tradition.
So there are older traditions which are very rational and have proved very successful in ancient times.
And that's certainly an alternative, certainly a much better alternative to a Jewish-inspired Christianity.
There's no doubt.
I completely agree.
And I'm not saying that it was perfect.
I'm sure people, you know, Christians will try to go cherry-pick little things that they didn't quite get right in ancient Greek, Greece, Or Rome, but it's still superior to the magical savior salvationism nonsense and the fear of hell and wanting to be a slave of the God of Israel.
Exactly.
Okay, so to segue into tech now, we can kind of jump straight from end times apocalyptic Christians, this belief in the mark of the beast, when technology comes to a point where everybody's tracked and you cannot buy or sell if you don't go along with the program.
Also, I've read these books by the guy Ona Vilna.
He's one of the top Kabbalahs in modern history.
And he lived in the 1700s.
He talked about the redemption of Israel, how they're going to return to the land, and how they're going to usher in the messianic age with technology and Kabbalah.
So technology, we see also Israel's technology ambitions and how their cybersecurity dominance and their influence in America in tech.
What do we need to know about tech?
And tell us about your history with tech because you've written many books.
You had the stuff with the Uni Bomber.
And what do we need to know about his take as well?
Well, right.
So that's a whole big story in itself, right?
So one of my areas of interest, long-time area of interest, is philosophy of technology and trying to understand what this thing is, this phenomenon called modern technology.
And we've known for a long time that it's hugely problematic, that it causes lots of difficulties in society and to people's psyche and to the environment and just disruptive to society.
And philosophers and thinkers have known this for literally hundreds of years.
It goes way back in Western history to be skeptical about technological advance.
And it's also been exploited because it's a means of power.
So people who were sort of unethical or ruthless would use technological advances to their advantage to gain wealth and power and influence.
So this is one piece, is sort of the deliberate or the malicious use of technology.
The technology itself, in addition, seems to have this kind of motive force of its own.
And it's kind of a long, interesting metaphysical story.
I guess we might have to go into it another time.
But there's actually reason to believe that technology, in a sense, is kind of a cosmological principle that really presses ahead under its own conditions and with its own imperatives.
And as we further that process, which is a very naturalistic, law-like process, in a sense, we're conceivably promoting our own demise because it's furthering a system which is getting further and further out of our control and which is causing more and more damage to us, even as people are using it to their own purposes.
So there's different aspects of the story going on.
I talk a little bit about it in my one book, The Metaphysics of Technology, which came out a number of years ago.
The history is in this book called Confronting Technology.
So both of those are relatively easily available.
You can both get those on Amazon.
And that, of course, led in time to dealing with technology critics, the real strong skeptics of industrial technology.
And that's where the Unibomber comes in.
So we know something about Ted Kaczynski's story back in the mid-90s.
He was sending mailbombs and promoting anti-technology views.
Eventually, he pushed the publication of his manifesto called Industrial Society in His Future.
He managed to get that published in the Washington Post, sold well over a million copies that day, and launched this kind of infamous American terrorist story about Kaczynski, who was the anti-tech bomber and who ultimately got caught and has been in prison ever since.
He sold a million copies of his book in one day?
That was the newspaper.
The Washington Post.
The day that they published the manifesto, which was back in September 1995, that single-day issue of the paper sold like 1.2 million copies.
It was the all-time record sales for any newspaper any single day.
Okay.
Gotcha.
So, and since that time, of course, the manifesto has been published In book form, there's a book that you can buy now.
It's called Technological Slavery.
And the book exists.
The original version, I wrote the introduction to it.
A good chunk of this book is letters from Kaczynski to myself because he and I had carried on a long writing campaign back and forth about the nature of technology and the nature of revolution against technology and how we should respond and so forth.
So much of that book is a response to my letters and critique of his own ideas.
Oh, so you're critiquing his ideas.
What was his main thing that he was focused on?
What was his big issue with tech?
Yeah, well, probably the biggest issue is to decide that you can't really control the technological process.
People tend to talk about the need for reform.
So if you think of technological problems, you'll say, well, we'll just sort of fix the process.
We'll tweak it.
We'll implement some changes.
We'll just modify the system so that it doesn't cause the harm that's being caused.
And that's a standard kind of reform strategy.
And Kaczynski argues, and I think rightly, that in the long run, that's going to fail, that you cannot really reform your way out of the problems of technology, that it continues to grow, it continues to restrain human freedom, it continues to have an undignified existence.
It abuses people, it produces psychological stresses and problems on people.
And there's really no way to avoid this.
And so his conclusion, his logical conclusion, which basically I agree with, is that you have to undermine the system completely.
There's no way to modify it.
You can't adjust it.
You have to revolt against the system.
And in some sense, bring it to an end.
And that's the only hope for the long-term survival of humanity and the planet.
The way that big tech is able to exploit people's data and remember there was that Facebook was manipulating people's emotions, being able to cause depression just by altering the algorithm.
The social controllers being able in control of the algorithm that get to decide what you see and what you don't see.
All the censorship that's going on now.
Is there an element of being enslaved where you become addicted and dependent and then you can't escape it?
Was that something that he talked about?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, right?
And he was not the first.
I mean, this goes back many, many years.
I mean, there's a nice passage from George Orwell in 1937 in his book, Road to Wake and Pierre, where he's talking about technology is like a drug.
It's like an addictive drug, and you don't take it without great caution, and it's only when it's really necessary.
And I mean, so this goes back, you know, decades and decades.
But Kaczynski, for sure, I mean, he was really just on the cusp of the advance of the internet and email and cell phones and social media, which had not come out yet in the early 90s.
Those were just sort of just happening as the time of the manifesto was published.
But he had kind of a good vision that this was coming, and he could see that people are going to get drawn and that there was going to be no way out, there was no escape, that you would be committed to the system, that you could not extract yourself from the system.
And I think, in a sense, he could see all these things that were coming in the near future.
So, about these letters, what's the kind of stuff that you guys would talk about?
Like, what would you ask him?
You were asking him about his manifesto, or just to clarify his thoughts?
Right.
So, right.
So, I mean, generally, I was supportive of his ideas.
I was before there was a Unibomber, and I still am now.
So, basically, I think his argument is solid.
But I knew that there were some critiques that people could make and would make of his argument in the manifesto.
So, basically, my role in the letters was to be the devil's advocate.
And I'd say, well, you know, someone could say this, and someone could say that, and how would you respond to this?
And so, I was throwing these challenges at him to get him to respond and to flesh out and to sharpen his argument, is really what it was.
And so, I was pushing him with these issues, and he would give long handwritten letters to me.
I have a couple hundred pages of handwritten letters from Kaczynski At home, where he's responded in detail to these challenges that I put forth.
And a lot of those responses that he wrote ended up in the book Technological Slavery.
So they're there for anyone to read.
Did you ever talk about religion with him?
Do you know what his religious beliefs were?
Just indirectly, he seemed to be not really buying into religion.
He seemed to be kind of had a little bit of a sense of a natural spirituality.
I guess maybe I would call him one of those spiritual but not religious kind of people, but not really in a strong way.
Maybe kind of a respect for nature or maybe a kind of, I don't know, consciousness in nature or something.
I can see where he would bind to that kind of idea, but he's not a religious person.
He's very rational, logical, analytical kind of person and generally doesn't seem to have much role for anything like conventional religion.
So I remember the Kurzweil stuff talking about the acceleration of technology and how the chips get smaller and processing gets faster and it's on this graph and stuff.
We see where cell phones and advanced technology in the last 20 years has exploded.
Where do you think it's going?
What's the dystopian future if we don't stop the trajectory that technology is on?
Well, right.
So that's the problem, right?
There's different ways to map the progress of technology.
There's a number of different metrics.
So you could look at chip size or computer speed or operations per second or financial measures, cost per transistor and these kind of things.
And they seem to be going on an exponential upward curve, right?
It's not just a linear rise.
It's an exponential curving upward, accelerating kind of curve.
And people like Kurzweil have made a big deal about this kind of accelerating curve.
It's the kind of an exponential rise such that it's going to functionally approach infinity, an infinitely large value of computing power in a relatively short period of time, in a finite period of time.
And if you literally plot the data on a curve, you can see that this curve is accelerating upward such that Kurzweil was able to predict a year when computer power would be functionally infinite, sort of unlimited beyond human capability.
And that was the year 2045.
And this is the singularity.
So people like Kurzweil have been promoting this year, 2045, more or less, as the point at which computers will have this functionally unlimited computing power.
So we'll have super, sort of really beyond human imagination, super artificial intelligence, super intelligent networks that will exist and will be functioning on their own.
They'll be autonomous.
They'll be designing their own computers.
They'll be designing their next generation of themselves.
You're talking about Skynet, like a quantum computer singularity like Skynet in Terminator.
Exactly right.
So that's where these ideas are coming from.
The science fiction movies are drawing from these ideas, which are not fiction ideas.
These are very realistic ideas that intelligent, emergent, even conscious behavior could come from a vastly complex and highly intelligent artificial system.
So that could be a network.
It could be an individual supercomputer.
We don't really know what form that's going to take.
But Kurzweil's been able to track the data progressively over many years, probably pushing 20 years now.
And we are consistently on track to be at an extremely high level of intelligent computing power in the next, say, next two decades.
And that's about the same time window that Kaczynski talked about as having time to take action against the technological system, because there could be a point at which it becomes too intelligent or too powerful, and we literally have no option.
We can't stop it.
It really becomes beyond our control.
And then that's the worst case scenario.
Then you don't know what will happen at that point.
If the computers are going to abuse you, they're going to enslave you.
They're going to keep you Around, they're going to decide to exterminate you because you're just worthless.
No one knows at that point.
It's really an unknown and probably catastrophic future at that point.
I see a threat of technology.
It's called consolidation of power.
It allows a very small amount of cabal of big tech companies that are all in cahoots with certain organizations like the ADL and others, and it gives them the control over the information age where you can't really participate in society if you're not on the internet and have a, you know, in the metaverse, and it just allows a small amount of people to really, really control and enslave everybody else.
Well, exactly.
So, in the near term, which is now, you have very powerful tools that are still relatively controllable by human beings.
So, we have this gray zone, this intermediate period that came about, say, about the year 2000.
It will probably exist for another 10 or 20 years, perhaps, where individuals can use this vast and growing power to manipulate and to exploit and to surveil and to control people, basically.
And it's striking, you know, the role of Zionist Jews, particularly in this process of big technology.
And this is a striking feature.
No one really wants to talk about it.
I guess some people know about it, but they don't really want to go in the details.
So, I mean, you can take any of the dominant tech industries.
You can look at Facebook, you can look at Google, you look at Oracle, you look at Dell Computer, you look at applications like YouTube or Instagram, you look at even Amazon.
If you take Amazon as a tech company, it's run by Andy Jassy.
So, you see dominant Zionist Jews in all of these institutions, and you say, well, that's like a really strange kind of thing, right?
Why are they so hugely dominant in these tech industries, which are causing all these problems?
They're at the root of surveillance, they're manipulating people's ideas, you know, they're producing addictive behaviors that are damaging to human health.
It's really kind of a striking story that no one really wants to talk about.
Well, they openly brag about it, and you see it reported in the news, but to notice it in a critical way, I've talked about it, and that's why I've been banned from Google and Facebook and all of big tech just about.
Just Patreon recently banned me for being essentially, you can't be a critic of Zionism on the internet.
It's considered blasphemy to have any doubts or be critical of the chosen ones because of this control over big tech.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, you know, and it's not just the control of the tech, it's the money, right?
Because tech brings billions of dollars to these guys who are running the show.
So, so you see an interesting overlap between the big tech barons and the wealthiest individuals in this country and in the world, right?
I mean, if you look at, if you look at, I was just collecting some data the other day.
If you look at the top 10 wealthiest Americans, at the top, you got Bezos and Elon Musk, sort of one and two.
But right below those guys, you have people like Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg.
And these guys are kind of in the technology media industry.
That's where they're making their billions.
And those guys are right up there in the wealthiest people in the world, literally, right?
I mean, their wealth is in the excess of $100 billion, most of those guys.
So they combine vast personal wealth with the control of these high-tech companies.
I mean, that's a hugely potent combination, which is, yeah, the opportunity for problems and abuse and manipulation is just horrendous when you think about it.
The way I put it is, I don't want a country that believes their identity from Judaism when the anti-Gentile Judaism views and their end times views.
I don't want these people dominating technology.
I think that's a recipe for disaster.
And earlier, back to the prophecy, you mentioned that the prophecies aren't going to come true.
Well, I agree they're not going to come true exactly, but I do believe that by Christians believing in these things, they're almost willing them into existence.
And it's like if something's coming along in the world and it looks like it's fulfilling prophecy, they can spin it that it is.
They're not going to stop it from happening.
They want it to happen because it's God's plan.
Well, that's exactly right.
I've made that point many years when I was teaching environmental ethics, right?
And you say, well, look, why do Christians not seem to be concerned about environmental abuse and destruction of the planet and so forth?
And it's like, well, hey, they just view that as a good thing.
It's like, hey, that's the end of the world.
And the world, Jesus comes, and everybody gets saved.
So what's the big deal, right?
We're actually sort of looking forward to the end of the world.
We want it to come sooner rather than later.
So yeah, you have this kind of pathological, counterproductive mindset where these people, if they're believing in this kind of grand and glorious end times, they actually are willing to promote and foster catastrophe because they think it's going to lead to some kind of divine end of the story when it will probably just be catastrophe.
Could mean the end of human race.
It could be the end of much of the biosphere of the planet at the same time.
Yeah, it's frightening to think that a group is dominant in technology and the internet and they believe they're chosen by God.
That's a combination that I don't want those people in control of our technological future.
And they're.
The problem is, right?
And they are.
So you really want to call these people out for who they are.
I mean, I always try to encourage people to say, hey, stick with the facts and get the truth out there.
And when you say, look, I got a 2% minority of my American population who is 50%, 60, 70% of the big tech barons in this country.
And you say, well, what's going on there?
And you have to ask yourself, how does this process work?
And why is it developing this way?
And who's profiting from this situation?
And should there be anything done about it?
I mean, could you pass laws or things to constrain or restrict this process?
Because it seems hugely counterproductive.
It's grossly unfair, if nothing else, that a 2% minority is going to have a dominant share of this highly potent industry, which produces billions in profit and produces much personal wealth, which in turn distorts the whole nature of the social political system in the end.
So, yeah, it's hugely problematic.
This concerns me as well.
Orthodox Jewish woman to be appointed to National Security Council cybersecurity position, the top cybersecurity official of the country, Israel's dominance in cybersecurity and spying.
They've been known for being caught spying with various times.
And I'm sure this is like a fox guarding the henhouse.
She donates to APEC.
Do you think she's going to say anything about the national security threat of handing over technology to a foreign nation?
Yeah.
Not likely, is it?
Not likely at all.
There was a scandal with her where one article was written about her that she donated a bunch of money to APEC, and this is a conflict of interest.
And they bullied the newspaper into taking down the article and apologizing.
Yeah, yeah, not surprising.
What are some of the other elements of technology, the dangers of technology that are kind of front and center in your mind lately?
What really concerns you about technology and the future of technology?
Yeah, well, it's this exponential growth, which is a problem.
You know, the dominance of cell phones and social media, which is really consuming people's time.
You look at the time, the hours per day that people put themselves in front of screens.
I mean, whether it's at work, at school, whether it's video games, whether it's watching films, I mean, just the numbers are staggering on many levels about how much time people are spending interfacing with other people.
I mean, obviously, we're doing it too, right?
Through technological media.
And you worry particularly about children, younger children, school-age kids who don't really have an ability to kind of filter out this process, don't really understand what's going on.
So you'll worry about the children and that aspect.
That bothers me.
And then you look at things, the recent phenomena, like the whole COVID pandemic thing, right?
Which I've been saying for a long time is really a technological, technologically constructed catastrophe, right?
So it was either a virus that was constructed in a high-tech genetic engineering lab, or it was simply studied in a high-tech lab and escaped, or it was a bioweapon that was deliberately released on the public.
You know, it was spread around the world by a high-tech global transportation system.
We had a high-tech mRNA, you know, new vaccine that's supposed to save us from the high-tech produced virus in the first place.
You know, in the meantime, everybody's pushed to go online and do on your online shopping in online schools.
I mean, it's been a tech disaster from start to finish, and nobody ever talked about it.
Contact tracing in terms of insurance.
They allowed the contact tracing.
And way more censorship came along with COVID as well.
Exactly.
So it's tracing, it's censorship.
It's right.
It's the growth of the official misinformation campaigns, and they're going to squash at competing voices, and they're going to deplatform you and all this stuff.
This really got accelerated through the whole COVID situation.
So it's been a huge boon to the technological infrastructure and the technological system has gained tremendously.
The billionaires have doubled and tripled their wealth in the last two or three years, and the rest of us have paid the price.
Absolutely true.
Since smartphones and computers really became pervasive, basically, I would say maybe it's been 20 years of the internet age.
Would you kind of agree with that?
So we've got 20-year-olds that have been raised their whole lives on the internet, many of them addicted from very early ages to tablets and smartphones, and they've been literally programmed by the social engineers with the algorithms.
The effects, if you could talk about the effects on their brains and if you think that the latest generation has been, you know, what is the effect on the latest Zoomers via technology on their lives?
Yeah, right.
So, I mean, there's a lot of troubling signs.
I have a lot of the data.
I don't have it with me on hand, but I put a lot of data on studies in one chapter in my book, The Metaphysics of Technology, because there's a component there in chapter 11 on educational issues in particular and the use of technology for children as an educational aid.
And then you look at all the negative effects on children's health as they've aged into adolescents and teens and young adults.
And you see booming problems in terms of depression and psychosis and attention deficit and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
I mean, these things are really accelerating in just the timeframe since about the year 2000 when we've really rolled out intense forms of computer use, computer instruction, cell phones, and social media.
And I think researchers are starting to make good causal connections between these advanced technologies and these psychological problems that are showing up on children who are now becoming teens and young adults.
So it's really kind of disturbing, right?
When you see some of the data coming on on how much these problems have increased, and you think about we've done it completely in the dark.
We had really kind of no conception, no thought.
We had no data.
We just sort of threw all our young children into this system and just let it do whatever it was going to do.
And it had sort of terribly negative consequences for so many people.
So it's really a striking negative story, I think, on many levels.
So what's kind of the solution to counter technology?
Is there a solution?
What's the game plan?
Well, this is kind of the big question, right?
So you got guys on the one, like Ted Kaczynski, who just want to pull the plug, right?
Just sort of blow the whole thing up and let it come crashing down.
And then you're back to hunter-gatherers or sort of small-scale.
Was that his plan?
And who did he bomb?
Who did he target with the bombs?
Well, you can target individual people who are prominent in the technology industry, right?
So scientists and researchers and executives.
Like Sarah Connor stopping Skynet, right?
Trying to assassinate the creator of Skynet.
Yeah.
But that was not an attempt to stop the system.
That was to get the notoriety to get the manifesto published in a high visibility venue.
So that was not a direct attack against the system, right?
If you're going to attack the system, you've got to do something else to get to the power grid or the information infrastructure, or maybe now it's the internet, or maybe it's, you know, some kind of core elements of how technology advances.
And you have to target that if you really want to sort of bring the system down and try to collapse it the way Kaczynski has argued.
I myself have argued for something sort of less dramatic.
I've talked about a sort of a slow and gradual rollback of technology, kind of taking us back to pre-industrial era technology over a long period of time, maybe 100 years.
And if we sort of do it deliberately and consciously, we could kind of unwind this process and get us back to a stable and sustainable state.
But that's definitely pre-industrial technology.
So you've got to go back, say, 1600 or earlier, because anything after that leads you on this runaway treadmill that you cannot get out of that leads to the destruction of the humanity and the planet.
So there are a couple of ways to go about it.
And some of them are not very pretty, but there are rational ways to back ourselves out of this disaster.
But we've got to talk seriously about the options and think about the consequences if we don't.
What's something that people can personally do in their own lives to counter the tech enslavement?
What are some of the things that you do?
I imagine you're not scrolling on Twitter all day like I am and reading endless comments, right?
No, right.
So I try to keep everything to a bare minimum, right?
I mean, obviously I do podcasts once in a while and I check email because it's kind of the basic thing that you got to do.
But basically, my social media presence is zero.
I do like virtually nothing on social media.
So I can hardly even tell you what these things are because I don't do Facebook, don't do Twitter, I don't do any of these kind of things.
I don't really even have a cell phone.
I mean, I have one that I use when I'm traveling because I need one to get around.
But at home on a day-to-day basis, I don't even have a cell phone.
So I mean, there's no reason to have it.
So you just don't need it.
So, you know, I'd like to encourage people to try living at a tech minimalist kind of lifestyle, right?
Get yourself off Facebook.
Don't worry about Instagram and posting all your latest meal pictures that you just had a nice burger and fries the other day and you want to post it up somewhere.
I mean, this stuff is just sort of nonsense.
And you have to sort of unplug yourself from this process if you can to try to salvage your own sanity.
And then think about your family.
For those of you who are married and have children, then that's a whole new kind of aspect of the problem where you have to worry about young children, how you're going to raise them to keep them relatively isolated from some of these technological problems.
Do you think that the technology situation is just headed for off a cliff?
Or are you optimistic that it could be reformed and not destroy the planet?
Yeah, no, I would not say I'm optimistic.
I think it's probably heading for the cliff kind of scenario.
I've laid out in printing in some of my publications about the slow and gradual unwinding of the process.
I called it creative reconstruction.
Came out recently in a book at Oxford University Press.
So it's getting very high-level press coverage in that sense.
So, I mean, the ideas are out there.
But, you know, I think it will probably take one or two or three major technological shocks, catastrophes.
Excuse me.
Like what?
Like a huge, a great reset or the grid going down, some type of like solar flare or something?
Yeah, exactly.
It could be a massive power outage.
It could be a massive terrorist kind of event.
It could be some runaway tech issue.
Could be something like a deliberately, clearly deliberately engineered bioweapon that somebody unleashes.
It could be a kind of a crazy terrorist attack.
The problem with COVID and people are panicking like mad, but a relatively small number of people really died from this.
I mean, if you want to put it in that sense, they're attributing large numbers.
But I think the people, the excess deaths in the end, will be relatively small for COVID.
And I think in the next 10 to 20 years, you can expect a technological catastrophe that's 10 times as bad easily.
And I think it's going to take something like that to really slap people around and to wake them up and to say, look, this is really a product of a high-tech system.
And nothing short of unwinding or getting rid of this tech system will save us.
Otherwise, we're going off the cliff.
And then it's just every man for himself at that point.
Yeah, it does seem like we're already in a dystopian world.
It seems like through tech, especially, they almost got so much control that there's really no way to counter them.
I've been trying to counter them, and I feel like I've just taken hit after hit, and the suppression, the censorship, the control of the media, all of it consolidated in the hands of the few.
We're getting up to the end of our time here.
I appreciate you for coming on.
I enjoyed the discussion.
Where could people best?
Let me just add a couple.
Sure, sure.
Yeah, please.
Let me just mention two groups that I could, Adam.
There's a couple of groups, a couple of friends of mine and former students, graduate students, who are trying to create a kind of a community of tech tech critics, right?
So I've got one guy on Twitter who's created a system called Machine Lies.
And so he's on Twitter there.
So there's the link, Twitter.com right.
Machine Lies.
And we've created another group called the Anti-Tech Collective.
You can see it there on my personal website.
So anti-techcollective.com is another group of former students who are kind of trying to carry on a serious anti-tech dialogue and to really kind of debate the pros and the cons and how we might go ahead.
So I think if there's a kind of encouragement, it's that there are some groups of people who are really trying to take this seriously.
They really, really are hardcore technology critics out there, not like these fake critics that we hear about sometimes in the news and read their books in the mainstream media.
So I would encourage people to check out one of these two groups if you're interested, just to get some kind of more recent thinking by the younger crowd on anti-tech ideas.
I just thought of another question I want to ask.
Elon Musk has kind of been in the media a lot warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence.
Yet he's promoting doing monkey brain interfaces and promoting that sort of thing and self-driving cars and other stuff like that.
What's your take on Elon Musk in that situation?
Yeah, he's made some interesting comments.
Even a number of years ago, he talked about unleashing the demon and he really gave a few little kind of really nightmare scenarios that he threw out about super AI and high-tech running out of our control.
And I think he understands the risks.
I'm sure he does.
He's a very smart guy and he's on the inside.
But he's trying to do brain-neural interfaces.
That seems like almost a nightmare technological scenario.
Well, right.
I mean, his story is he's doing this to track the progress so he can see how things are developing and he has an inside hand on how things are emerging.
So if you're not, I don't know if he, I don't, I don't think he's being a hypocrite.
I think he's probably torn.
On the one hand, he sees potent technologies.
He's, you know, he's got investors who want to promote these things, but probably personally, he can see that this is potentially a catastrophe.
So, yeah, maybe he's torn.
I don't know.
Overtime with 25, thank you so much.
He says, just finished Jesus hoax.
Enjoyed the interview.
Yes.
What are some of the top titles if people want to read some of your work that they should pick up first and where can they find them?
Yeah, so you show my personal website, davidscribina.com.
So it's got sort of my main books.
It's got a little bit of short bio on myself.
It's got my main works on technology.
So, confronting technology, metaphysics of technology.
I've edited a couple books by a deceased friend of mine, Henrik Skolomowski.
So I've got a couple of his books on there.
Technological slavery.
Yeah.
Technological slavery.
So I have a link to that one because I wrote the introduction to it, and a lot of the letters are to me.
I've got a couple of my books on philosophy of minds, a couple of other areas that I've been researching over the years.
What's the participatory mind?
What's that about?
Yeah, that's about sort of the power of the mind to create reality.
How reality is not just an objective given thing, but the mind actually co-creates the nature of reality.
So, yeah, this was an interesting idea of my mentored friend Henrik Skolomowski.
And so he wrote the kind of a definitive work.
This was back in 94.
He published the original version.
I edited it and republished it for him a few years ago.
Interesting.
All right.
Well, thank you for coming on once again.
And I appreciate your time.
Hope everybody will check out your work.
Look forward to seeing Jesus Hoax part two, the updated version.
Is it going to be part two or just probably revise, revise and expanded second edition.
So I'll definitely let you know when that's getting close.
And maybe we can do another show when that rolls around.
Awesome.
Cool.
Yeah.
If you haven't seen them, check out some of my playlist of my Jesus hoax videos as well.
You may find some material there that you want to include.
Something that may pique your interest.
I did one that the Christianity deception or Christian hoax or something like that.
And I really go deep into the Old Testament and the New Testament and how they constructed it.
You'll probably like it.
I could send you the link.
But anyway, we're going to wrap it up.
Thank you again.
Everybody, thanks for watching.
Thanks for the support.
No morenews.org.
Let us know what you think in the comments on Odyssey.
And I appreciate you all.
And I will see you guys soon.
▲
Export Selection