Professor Tiang, a Yale-educated educator blending Western classics with eschatological history, argues that Jerusalem’s apocalyptic myths—from Kabbalistic prophecies to Christian Zionist accelerationism—drive modern conflicts, predicting Israel’s false-flag destruction of Al-Aqsa and a U.S. civil war under Trump’s third term. He ties Peter Thiel’s transhumanist ambitions to occult timelines, framing him as an "Antichrist" figure orchestrating chaos via Palantir and Christian nationalist factions. The episode traces Zionism’s extremist roots—Herzl’s alleged Nazi collusion, Sabbatai Zevi’s sin-driven prophecy—to a coming Pax Judaica, while dismissing liberalism as a hollow relic in an era where trauma-engineered spectacles (like Kirk’s assassination) reshape geopolitics. History, he insists, isn’t progress but cyclical script—where belief systems, not logic, dictate the future. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, it is 9 p.m. in New York, 7 p.m. out here in Montana.
And it is my pleasure to welcome Professor Jiang to our abode, our discussion.
So Professor Jiang, I hope I didn't mangle your name.
If I did, that's on me, but welcome.
Thank you.
Great.
So first off, before we start this discussion, I'd like to let you introduce yourself to our group.
So you have an interesting history in both China and Canada.
And just give us a little taste of your personal story.
Yeah, great.
So thanks so much for inviting me, Richard.
So my name is Professor Tiang.
I was born in China.
And then when I was six, my family and I immigrated to Toronto, Canada for better opportunities.
My father had to experience the Cultural Revolution, and he didn't want me to experience that as well.
So we went over.
My father was a high school teacher in China, but he didn't really speak English.
So when he went over to Canada, he became a dishwasher, restaurant cook for the rest of his life.
He's retired now.
And I grew up in Toronto, but I worked very hard and I got a scholarship to study at Yale University.
I was an English major there.
And I wanted to go to law school because that's what you do after you graduate from Yale.
But I wanted to take a break before going to law school.
So I came over to Beijing, China to teach English at a high school for a couple of years.
And I loved it.
I fell in love with education.
I fell in love with teaching.
I've tried different careers.
I've worked as a journalist.
I've worked as a filmmaker.
I've also worked for United Nations in Afghanistan.
So I've had a pretty eclectic career.
But I've always loved education.
So when I was in my early 30s, I returned to education in China and I've worked in different capacities.
I was a high school principal.
I was a curriculum director.
I was a teacher trainer.
And now I am just a regular high school teacher because I have three kids, I have three young kids.
And I need to spend time with my kids.
So I return to the classroom.
But I've always wanted to teach the liberal arts.
So as a high school teacher, I teach the great books, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Divine Comedy, The Republic, the Bible, the INEA, Paradise Loss.
I teach all the great books, basically.
And that is what it sounds like.
Teaching Great Books00:13:43
Right, right.
So I don't teach Chinese canon because I don't, my Chinese isn't good enough, but I teach the Western canon.
And eventually I started to teach history as well because I recognized that in China, you can't really teach the Western canon without the context, without teaching Western history.
And I started to upload my lectures to YouTube because I wanted to share my ideas with a larger audience.
And for the first year, I got 300 subscribers and I was really excited about that.
I had great interactions with the audience.
And then a couple months ago, my channel blew up.
I'm about over 600,000 subscribers now on YouTube.
So it's been a while ride, but it's only been the past two, three months.
My channel's been getting a lot of attention.
And yeah, so that's where we are right now.
My channel is called Predictive History.
And some of you may know the channel.
But the idea is I want to reimagine history, the way it's taught, the way that it's conceived.
And so my biggest concern about history is that it's not analytical.
It's not structured.
There's too much focus on individuals.
There's too much focus on storytelling and not enough on the analysis of structural forces that drive history.
And so my project, it's a huge project, but my project is to reimagine history as a tool for us to better understand humanity as well as to predict the future.
So the goal is to go back and reinterpret history.
So it accomplished three goals.
The first goal is that we're able to create a coherent story about humanity.
Second goal is to help us better understand the present, to explain the present.
And the third goal is to give us the tools to predict the future.
So that's what's called predictive history.
Yeah.
Yes.
I've been digesting your content really over the past month, but even especially over the past few days.
And I've really enjoyed it.
And yeah, I think you've become sort of a Jordan Peterson-like figure.
Jordan Peterson was a rather obscure psychologist in Canada uploading lectures and it caught on.
And I hope that, I hope the exact same thing happens with you.
But I don't want the manic episode, right?
I want to avoid the...
Well, we would expect you to cry during this interview at some point.
Just all your emotions.
Yeah, that's the way to the top.
I'll try my best.
I'll do my best.
But okay, let's jump into history because, you know, Henry Ford said history is bunk.
History is a slaughterbench.
There is so much violence and irrationality, things about history you can't find any meaning in.
I think for a lot of people, history is a story, maybe even a moral story.
You can learn about George Washington and the cherry tree and become a better person.
Hegel, you know, history is reason marching forward and becoming self-conscious of itself or something like that.
So there's been attempts.
I would say that for most people, history is detail.
Maybe it's wars, diplomats, etc.
But I mean, you're try to help us understand like where you're coming from, because I mean, is it a sort of deterministic account?
Almost, it's not Marxist, of course, but somewhat like Marx.
Like there's class dynamics that are at play that are pushing us towards this and scientifically we can understand it.
Or give us a taste of how we could learn from the past and predict the future and better understand dynamics in the present.
Right, okay.
That's a great question.
And my answer is going to be long-winded, so I apologize in advance.
But before I started to teach history, I actually spent some time teaching computer science.
So I spent quite some time understanding artificial intelligence and how it worked.
So, and I became obsessed with how artificial intelligence works.
But the idea about artificial intelligence is that you can create a feedback loop so that the output becomes the input.
And what I mean by that is rather than you write the algorithm, rather than you write the code and try to figure out how something happens, what you do is you look at the machine, figure out the variables, the forces that create the outcome.
So you train the machine with the outcome, with the results.
And then the machine tries to figure out how we got to these results.
And that's how artificial intelligence works.
So my great insight is, well, we do the same thing with history.
Because every understanding of history, it is really an analytical model, right?
It's an understanding of how the world works.
There are values, there are assumptions embedded in your model.
And because it's an analytical model, it has to be also a predictive model because you're assuming that these values, these assumptions will stay consistent, right?
So my argument is this.
If history, if a historical understanding is correct, then we can analyze it and create predictions of the future.
And these predictions will allow us to validate or negate the model.
At the very least, it will allow us to better understand the model and then to refine the model.
So I'll give you an easy example.
So if you look at how history is written, the assumption is it is theological, meaning that we are progressing towards a greater good or things are improving.
And if you just look at what's happening today, clearly the theological model doesn't work because how would you explain all these wars that are raging around the world?
How would you explain what's happening in the Middle East?
How would you explain all the civil conflict and economic Malise in the United States?
How would you explain the election of Donald Trump?
So I don't think history is theological.
So I think that the current, how the world's progressing, it sort of negates that theological model.
So that's why I think about history.
Well, do you think it's the cyclical or is that more on your wavelength?
Yeah.
So I think it's very important to always keep, to have like different possibilities.
So as you mentioned, historically the debate has always been, is it is history linear, theological, or is it cyclical?
And it just rhymes, it's bound to repeat itself.
And I've been working on a new theory recently, and I'll just present to you, but I warn you that it is a very immature, undeveloped theory.
But my theory is that history is sort of underpinned by narratives, by sacred stories.
And so what history really is, it's about humanity's attempt to achieve certain stories that they believe to be sacred and to be true in itself.
And that's what drives societies.
That's what drives history.
Another way of saying this is that history is almost eschatological, right?
So you have people obsessed with the second coming of Jesus.
And for them, it's like, how do we create the conditions for the return of Jesus?
And you can make the argument that that's what's really driving the conflict in the Middle East.
You have these Messianic Jews.
You have these Christian Zionists who are obsessed with creating World War III because in their minds, that will compel the return of Jesus to restore peace in the world and create the Messianic millennium.
Okay.
That's what they think.
And so my argument is that it's that perception is reality.
Belief is reality.
So if enough people in power believe something, they can make it real.
And that's what drives history.
It's narrative that creates reality.
It's stories that create the world we live in today.
Well, and mind before matter, which is something you talked about in your lectures on the development of polytheism to monotheism, et cetera.
We do seem to assume that there's a brain, a clump of gray matter and cells and so on, and a mind develops from that.
The ancients thought something very different.
And as an analogy, you could think about that in terms of world history, that there's some great story that is being retold over and over again.
We're telling it to ourselves.
And that story is informing in ways we can't fully understand maybe unconsciously our decisions and actions.
And sometimes even consciously.
I mean, there's no doubt that you can look back to the Middle Ages and see a great deal of stasis.
Nothing much happened.
I shouldn't say that.
Of course, many things happened, but nothing much changed.
There wasn't a sense of development in people's minds.
And maybe that had something to do with the fact that this world is just a waiting room, that this world doesn't matter.
Your best life is later on.
So there's really, you can build monuments pointing upwards towards God, but there's no real reason to develop anything right now because this is, we're going to shuffle off this mortal coil and live in eternity with God.
And so there's no reason to develop.
I mean, I'm also thinking here of political theology, which we could define as the every political ideology attempt at legitimacy is a secularization of an earlier religion.
And so there is something deeply Christian to the modern world.
And obviously, people were more perhaps sincere Christians in the Middle Ages.
But we've, in a way, attempted to actualize it in modernity in the sense that we're pushing towards heaven on earth.
We're pushing towards a new humanity, etc.
And you can obviously see that in revolutionary movements, the French Revolution, the American Revolution even, certainly in the development of communism.
We are it.
This whole slaughterbench of history is going to end with us.
And there's a deep Christian core to that type of thinking.
And so once that thinking is embedded in a mind, then historical actors, whether they be politicians or warriors or scientists, are going to conform to that idea.
And so it's a sort of explanation of human action.
There's a narrative behind it.
It's not all just individual will and rationality.
We're trying to fulfill something that's been in our brains since we were children.
We're trying to fulfill that in this world.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I mean, that's, I mean, that's exactly right.
I think the major phrase that resonates is heaven on earth.
And I think that's a major break from the past where, as you say before, we always assumed that this was just a stop on a journey, an internal journey through the heavens.
And we're here to experience certain things we could not experience up in the heavens because here we have corporal bodies.
We're physical, but up there we are spiritual.
So this is a place.
It's part of the journey, but it's not the end of the journey.
And everything we do here is to prepare ourselves for the journey up there, which is what really matters.
And as you say, this past hundred years, I mean, really with the beating of modernity, right?
With Freud and with Einstein and with Regina Wolf, James Joyce, our mindset has changed so that we believe that we are heaven and we can create heaven on earth.
And that's really the entire project of Western civilization, of modernity today, to use science, to use psychology, to use economics to create a paradise on earth.
And on one hand, that's extremely idealistic.
But on the other hand, it's also very scary because you can argue that we're playing God.
Happening in Gaza00:14:22
And so you see the rise of artificial intelligence.
You see the rise of eugenics.
You see, I mean, communism, right?
I mean, like, these are all attempts to create heaven and earth.
But the underlying assumption is that we can be God.
And any Christian will tell you that's actually very dangerous to think.
Yeah, absolutely.
Do you think maybe so much of the disappointment and heartache that we see in everyday life, no one's happy.
And I'm speaking as an American.
You can talk to people on the left.
On the right, the left will love that Luigi Mangioni shot that fat bastard who had too much money and was keeping health care from the people.
The right are in a sort of state of paranoia in many ways about the deep state and the government and people trying to turn them transsexual and so on.
There's a general unhappiness.
And I was wondering if that had something to do with the fact that we've sort of lost a story, the story of the 20th century.
we don't quite have it anymore.
We don't have that utopia that we're pushing towards.
And let me just throw out one example that's more concrete.
Brezhnev, the premier of the Soviet Union, gave a speech at one point in the 19th, I believe in the late 70s.
And he said something to the effect, well, Karl Marx wasn't about fairy tales.
He was a scientist.
And so we're not quite yet at communism.
We're still in the socialist stage, but we're, you know, through bureaucratic excellence, moving step by step in that direction.
And within 15 years, the whole thing came crashing down.
And I think maybe he got it wrong in the sense that Karl Marx is a fairy tale, actually, at some point.
He is telling you a story about the past and this amazing world to come that actually inspires you to sacrifice and to look to the stars and imagine a new world.
And the moment the Soviet Union lost that was the moment that it started to actually come crashing down.
And I think there's a lot of similarities in the United States with Brezhnev as Joe Biden, these old men in charge of this thing.
They're sort of calling back to the past, calling back to the Cold War, but they're not really looking ahead.
And so I guess what I'm getting at is maybe like that loss of that utopian desire might really be at the heart of the disappointment that we see everywhere.
You'll see it in your neighbors.
You'll see it on far leftists.
You'll see it on conservative activists.
They all seem to agree that it hasn't worked out, that it's getting worse, and that it's not headed anywhere.
Yeah, I completely agree.
So I'll give you a counter example to what's happening in the Western world.
You look at the Houthis in Yemen, okay?
These are people in poor all their lives.
They have no access to technology.
They might have some ballistic missiles brought up from Iran, but I mean, like, they're still a pretty low technology society.
They're very poor.
But I guarantee you, like, the people, the Houthis in Yemen, they're probably happier.
They're a lot happier than Americans.
And there are certain reasons why.
I mean, first of all, they're extremely spiritual people, right?
I mean, like, like they are, I mean, they are Shias.
They, I mean, they really believe in their religion.
There's a unifying story.
There's a unifying mythology to their society.
That's the first point.
The second point is that they're living for a higher purpose.
I don't think they're being political or manipulative or calculating when they say that they care about what's happening in Gaza and they will not stop until Israel stops what's happening in Gaza.
I think they're being extremely sincere.
And the third thing is, you know, death gives meaning, war and death gives meaning to people.
You know, we, you know, America, Western society has created a society that fears death, that thinks that death is the worst thing that can happen to you.
And as a result, people aren't taking risks.
People don't have the freedom, the liberty to, they don't have agency anymore.
And I don't, so I think that if you don't have community, if you don't have purpose, you don't have agency, it's very hard to live a happy, creative, and meaningful life.
And that's the fundamental issue facing not just America, but all of Western society today.
Yes, absolutely.
So let's talk about the Middle East here because it's not just a region of the world.
And it's also not just a region of world in which there are immense stores of petroleum.
Those are obviously important things.
But it's also the Holy Land.
It's the story told in the Torah about a small people escaping persecution under Pharaoh and living in the wilderness and then ultimately marching into Canaan, establishing a kingdom at some point and going through all sorts of adventures and ups and downs along the way.
So it has theological importance.
I mean, even with someone who's in the news now, Charlie Kirk, they would say, what are your thoughts on Israel?
And so on.
He's like, well, gosh, I feel like there's a lot of violence in ethnic cleansing, but just keep in mind, this is where Jesus walked on water and raised people from the dead and turned water into wine.
It had this emotional contact with him.
And thus, I don't think he could ever give it up because it's on that level of his being.
But how do we understand?
Because I mean, you look at the Middle East now, it's blood and guts.
Obviously, Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
There are tons of machinations going on and et cetera.
It looks chaotic.
But how do we understand it in terms of a story from the Bible or a theology?
Yeah, so Jerusalem has been at the heart of human history for a long, long time.
And there are many reasons why, right?
So you mentioned the eschatological, theological, religious element, okay?
And we'll talk about that later on.
But we also remember that throughout human history, this region, the Levant, was really the center, the epicenter of global trade.
I mean, you wanted to go from Egypt to Anatolia to Mesopotamia to Europe.
You had to go through the Levant.
So the Levant was always contested territory.
And, you know, back in those days, whoever controlled the trade routes was the empire of that day.
And that's why Israel has featured prominently throughout human history.
And that's why, you know, if you are an Israelite, you really did believe that you were center of the world because everyone was trying to grab your territory.
And as you say, today, now there's all this oil in the Middle East.
So you make the argument that from a historical perspective, the Levant really is the center of the world.
Certainly what happens in the Levant is what drives human history.
But to answer your question, like if you talk about the eschatological elements, people believe that Jerusalem is the holy city.
And I'm not sure if you've been to Jerusalem.
I've been to Jerusalem for one day.
And it is really the most beautiful, the most sacred, the most holy city in the world.
I mean, like you just walk the city.
You can feel all that holy energy.
I mean, it really is a deeply spiritual experience.
If you're open to that sort of thing and you just walk the streets of Jerusalem, it's a really, really small place.
It's really cramped.
But the sort of like religious devotion, the religious energy in that small area, it's just immense, right?
It's a meeting place of many different religions.
You have the Al-A'Aqsa Mosque, you have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, you have, of course, the Western Wall.
So from a religious perspective, it's really the epicenter of the world.
So I think it's natural for people to believe that this is where history began and this is where history will end, right?
And history ends with the second coming of Jesus.
And that's what people are praying for.
And what's really important for us to understand is it's not just the Jewish faith, it's many faiths.
You have the Islamic faith who believe that Jerusalem will be the end of the world.
You have the Orthodox, you have the Catholic, you have all these different faiths that all converge on Jerusalem.
And so, you know, my thesis is that narrative drives history.
And because the second coming is such a powerful narrative, people are drawn to that place.
But not only are they drawn to that place, but they feel compelled by their faith to act out their belief.
And that story is very, very compelling.
like a world war in which Israel stands up against the entire world, the war of Gog and Magog, Armageddon, and this will lead to the Messianic age with Jesus returns.
I mean, I'm not a religious person, but I did see the literature.
And I can tell you that just from a literary perspective, it's a beautiful, moving, compelling story that compels people into action.
It's very inspiring.
And it's really the most powerful story in the world that like through our actions, for our sacrifice, we can achieve heaven on earth.
We can achieve the Messiah age.
And if you just act out the script, then everything will be fine.
I mean, it really is the greatest drama.
It really is the greatest movie.
And you can be a participant in it.
And so I think that's what's going on in the Middle East.
And so if this theory is correct, then we make certain predictions about what will happen in the Middle East.
Well, first of all, what's happening in Gaza is certainly part of the eschatology.
Right?
Because what's happening in Gaza, it's really, I mean, driving the world against Israel.
I mean, like, if you just say normal human being and you see what Israel is doing in Gaza, you can't be, you can't feel, but you can't feel, but be disgusted and contemptuous about what's happening.
So that's number one.
I think that what's happening in Gaza will, over the next few months, speed up.
I know what's happening is terrible right now, but they can do so much worse.
And, you know, they can outright seize the territory for one thing.
Yes.
And that's what they're doing.
You know, and I think they've cut off internet access so the world does not really know what's going on there anymore.
They launched a massive offensive in Gaza and Nanian has come and said that we need to be Sparta.
You know, we need to come together as a military society to achieve the prophecy.
Okay.
So I think what's happening in Gaza will just speed up over the next few months.
Okay.
That's number one.
Number two is, and I think number two is what's going to shock the world is eventually they will destroy the Al-Axec mosque because that's part of their eschatology.
And so, I mean, like, like, like, so the thing about religion is astrology and numerology really matter.
So they have the date.
Okay.
They know exactly when they will do this.
All the preparations are in place, but because I don't have access to their numerology.
I mean, like, so, so, so it's, um, I, I, I, um, it's part of the Kabbalah.
You know, they have this numerology, astrology.
So, so they have these people who spent years figuring out the exact date to destroy the Al-Axec mosque because that's, because that is the most opportune or the most heavenly, the most divine time.
So, they have that date.
I don't know what it is.
I'm sure that if you have some expectation of Kabbalah, if you do some digging, you can figure out that date.
But they have that date and they will destroy that Al-Axek mosque.
And it'll come out of nowhere.
I mean, it might just be a rocket come out of nowhere and blow that thing up.
I don't know how they'll do it, but it's going to shock the world.
And that's the intention to shock the world.
So I think that, and I think it will happen really quickly because they have the red heifer in place.
So I'm not sure if you know much about.
Yes, no, I do.
Yes.
So they have the red heifer, right?
And like, like they have, I think, a one or two year timeframe in order to actually sacrifice the red heifer to consecrate the third temple.
So it's going to happen within the next two years.
Well, according to this fellow on Tim Poole, the red heifer has been sacrificed, in fact.
I don't know if you saw that.
Okay.
Yeah, make of it what you will.
Yes, this person named King, who's well connected on the right wing, and he's a super Jew of some kind.
He announced that the red heifer actually had been ritualistically sacrificed.
Yeah, Adam King is his name.
And so this is happening.
Now, he announced that on Tim Poole's show.
I mean, make of that what you will.
Maybe he's a dreamer.
But clearly something is happening.
This isn't just some biblical story.
This is something that they're directly pursuing.
And let me get also to something just to put some emphasis on this notion of being hated.
Jews and the Pursuit of Prophecy00:16:05
So Jews are well accustomed to being hated.
If you look at the stories that they tell of themselves, there is always a Pharaoh somewhere who is going to oppress them, enslave them, and not let them leave.
And that could be a rather benign pharaoh like the WASP establishment.
That could be a terrible pharaoh like Hitler.
That could be 19th century anti-Semitism and forcing them to get us, et cetera, et cetera.
There's always a story of persecution.
And the stories throughout the Bible, now, obviously there's David's kingdom, there's triumph in Canaan, but Genesis, most all of Exodus, it's about persecution.
They're used to it.
Their identity is based in part and to a large part on being hated.
So in some ways, I think what I'm hearing here is that, first off, they're used to it.
Second off, they might want to gin it up.
They're okay with being hated.
They're okay with having the world turn on them.
And that, in fact, is a great source of identity.
If there's anti-Semitism, you know, Mumdami in New York City mayor, I'm not sure how anti-Semitic that guy is, but at least the story is, you've got to flee, you've got to get out of there.
Come to Israel.
You know, Donald Trump's the new Hitler.
to Israel.
So much of their identity works through that type of dynamic.
And so doing something as shocking as destroying this mosque in Jerusalem, it's part of the game plan.
Yeah, I mean, again, I think that if you just dabble in the Kabbalah, if you just study a bit of numerology, you will discover that it's always been part of the plan to blow that thing up.
But it has to be blown up at a certain time.
I'm very skeptical that they sacrificed a red heifer because they would sacrifice a red heifer in order to consecrate the third temple.
So you first need to destroy that al-Azh mosque, and then you need to consecrate the land, the territory, so that priests can go in and build that third temple.
I mean, they're very, very specific.
I mean, they're really ritualistic.
They have to follow things exactly for, they have to think exactly.
That's part of the religion.
I mean, it's a very priestly religion.
They're extremely ritualistic.
They're extremely obsessive-compulsive.
So I don't think they sacrificed it.
They would not screw up the timeline like that.
But the larger point about Jews and creating hatred in order to create a sort of like ethnic identity for themselves.
So I'm not sure how much you know about Jewish history, but I'll give you my overall framework of how I understand Jewish history.
So, I mean, obviously, the golden age for the Jews was the kingdom of David.
And at that time in history, and we're talking about maybe 1000 BCE, this is after the Bronze Age collapse.
Israel as a nation, as a people, and as depicted in the Bible, it's wealthy, it's open, it's cosmopolitan.
And if you actually look at the history, it was also polytheistic.
Monotheism is something that comes after the Babylon exile.
But at that point, it was an extremely open, polytheistic, welcoming society.
But over time, because the Levant is such contested territory, more and more empires start to invade Israel and carved up Israel in different territories.
You had the Assyrians, you had the Babylonians.
And ultimately, it led to the Babylonian exile.
And that's where most scholars believe the Bible was actually written or most of it was redacted.
And so at this point in history, you have these elite who are deprived of their people and their land and their religion, right?
Because Jerusalem is the holy city, right?
And you're stuck in Babylon somewhere.
And so they now have to reconceive, reimagine a religion in a way that allows them to stay united as a powerless diaspora that has no access to their God and to the Holy Land.
And with Cyrus the Great, the great Messiah in the Bible, he sent the Jews back to Jerusalem to build the temple, but it was under Persian patronage.
And then after the Persians came the Greeks, the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire.
So throughout most of this history, the Jews were tools of empire.
And so what's happening is that they need to constantly reimagine their religion in a way that allows them to stay united against all this oppression.
And that's why over time, the religion became much more conservative, much more close-minded, and much more fanatical.
And then, of course, you have the rise of Christianity.
And Christianity was a great threat to the religion because a lot of Jews were absorbed into the religion.
And now you have basically a civil war going on in the Jewish religion.
And now how do you maintain your religion under the threat of Christianity?
And of course, Islam will arise later.
And then you have certain traumatic events like the Spanish expulsion when Jews were asked either to convert or to leave Spain and go to the Ottoman Empire.
And the trauma was most Jews chose to convert.
And so throughout history, the Jews had a problem.
It's like, how do you stay united?
And what they discovered is the best way to stay united is by creating opposition against the dominant community, by doing things, by creating events that create differentiation, that basically caused the larger community to despise you.
And if we move fast forward to the modern age, you can argue that Zionism, the creation of Zionism, it's fueled by anti-Semitism because at the end of the 20th century, sorry, at the end of the 19th century, when Theodore Herzel wrote his book, right, that began Zionism, everyone thought he was crazy.
Jews were happy in Europe.
They were happy in Britain.
They're happy in America.
Why would they want to go to a desert in Israel?
At that time in history, this around 1900, only about 3% of Jews even considered moving back to the Holy Land.
Only 3%.
And they're considering this.
They're actually doing this.
So now you have a problem.
How do you get these Jews to go back to Israel?
Because you don't have Jews going back to Israel, then the Israel project doesn't really work.
You cannot reconstitute the Holy Land.
And so you can make the argument that at that time, they developed certain strategies that would ignite any Semitism around the world in order to force Jews to return to Jerusalem.
And this is not a conspiracy theory, okay?
a Jewish historian in Israel, Israeli historian, Elen Pape, who's written many books discussing the rise of Zionism and how it's fueled by terrorist acts against Jewish people that were false flags.
This happened in Baghdad, where there's a very vibrant Jewish community and they were happy in Baghdad, okay?
But then you have certain terrorist activities that forced them to leave Baghdad and return to Jerusalem.
And I mean, Elena Pape will go as far as to say that there was certain collaboration between Zionists and the Nazis during World War II, because the Nazis wanted to remove Jews from Germany and the Zionists wanted the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
So it makes sense that they would collaborate in certain capacities.
Right.
Yes, and there's a Herzl attempted to win over Wilhelm II, I believe.
And yeah, I think he said the famous quote of anti-Semites will be our best friends in a way because our interests are aligned.
But this project, which is still under 80 years, I mean, modern Israel, they brag about being a tech society, the Silicon Valley of the Middle East.
It's a modern democracy surrounded by theocracies.
They've sort of sold themselves as secular.
But as you're saying, embedded in that is a grander biblical Jewish project of bringing about the Messiah, I guess, in their minds for the first time.
Yeah, well, I mean, like most societies, I mean, Israel is suffering from an identity crisis.
So as you say, there are a place like Tel Aviv that is very open, very liberal, very cosmopolitan.
That's really where the tech sector is based.
And, you know, they're very aligned with reformed Jews in America.
So they're very liberal orientation.
And they see Netanyahu as really Satan, I mean.
But these past 10 years, it's really these extremist Jews and many of them are Sabantian Frankish.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ideas of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank.
But they really believe that through transgression, through committing evil, through doing sin, you can accelerate biblical prophecy and create the Mesan age.
And these figures are very dominant in Israel, but they're also very dominant in America and around the world.
So I'm not sure, but if you're interested, it's very important that you study Zepatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, their philosophy, because their big philosophy is redemption through sin, that by creating even a world, you can actually create the conditions for a better world.
And so these are uh, extremists embedded within the 99 cabinet that want to drive the um, the anti-so it's possible you have a million Israelis who are liberal, who are open-minded, but you only need about 10 to who are in positions of power and who are completely aligned in trying to achieve eschatology.
Those 10 can cause a lot of damage.
And I think it's those 10 people, a very small minority of people, that's driving Israeli policy right now.
Now, a lot of the reason why is because they have the massive support of Christian Zionists in the United States as well as in Britain and around the world.
Well, also just, you know, a data point here.
So right now, actually, Peter Thiel, who is a Silicon Valley master of the universe, is giving a lecture series on the Antichrist.
This is something that he referenced in some major interviews he did, one with the New York Times and others.
He seems to associate the Antichrist with Greta Thunberg, of all people, who's going to force us all to live in a eco-fascist village or something like that, that she's going to promise us safety and security, but also identity.
So it's Greta is the Antichrist.
I don't think it's any coincidence that Greta also, as we speak, is on a flotilla or is traveling to Gaza and has been maybe the most famous outspoken critic against Netanyahu and such.
I think those ideas rhyme together.
Now, most of Thiel's critics would say that he's the Antichrist because he sort of fits the image and he's bringing on the surveillance state and so on.
And I sort of understand where they're coming from with that.
But how does that idea of the Antichrist, anti-Messiah, false Messiah fit into this story?
Yeah, so the Antichrist is a very important concept in eschatology.
And so the first thing to understand about the Antichrist is if you look at different eschatologies, whether it's Orthodox or Christian or Jewish, it's not a person.
It's actually different people.
So it's possible, like, you will have different Antichrists emerge over time.
Okay, that's the first thing.
Second thing is that it's not really who the Antichrist is.
It's what he does, right?
Because the idea of the Antichrist is that he creates a unified government that brings about the surveillance state, the mark of the beast, they call it, right?
Like the mark of the beast, you can interpret as possibly a social security number, but also a microscope in your head or whatever, but something that marks you for life and allows the surveillance state to control you.
Different people have interpreted the Antichrist to mean unite nations to create a world government.
But whatever the eschatology, what they say is the Antichrist has to come first before the Masaic age.
And so it would make sense, like the focus is not on the Antichrist, because once you create the Antichrist, then you create the conditions for the Masaian age.
So what's really important for us to remember is that there's a script in place.
And so we can actually predict how they'll behave.
Because for them, it's really important that you follow the script to the letter.
You know, they're just actors.
God is the director.
They're just actors, and they have to act out the script precisely in order to create the conditions for the Masaic age, the millennium, they call it, heaven on earth, basically.
So I'm sorry if I'm being vague, but the Antichrist is interpreted differently in different eschatologies.
have you ever looked into the work of uh Joachim or Joachim de Fiore um he's he's a okay Well, I'll set it up regardless.
It's 12th and 13th century monk.
And he, in many ways, brought about the idea of not just a sort of linear progression in history, but a dispensation.
And so there's the age that is depicted in the Old Testament that is the age of the father.
And it's harsh, brutal.
There's death.
There's punishment.
There's destroying the world and so on.
And there's the age of the son that is Jesus coming.
And it is about a sacrifice of the son in order to wash away the tears of that earlier age.
And he was a, again, he was in 12th, 13th century.
So he was sort of living a thousand years after Jesus, you know, right, smack dab in the high Middle Ages, I guess.
And he saw even figures like Frederick II from the Holy Roman Empire, this German king as a kind of antichrist figure.
He was usurping the Pope, going to the Holy Family.
He was, I don't know, maybe the Trump of his age or Hitler.
Schofield's Vision of the Antichrist00:12:15
I don't know exactly.
But what he thought is that a figure like that who's challenging all authority is necessary to bring on the third age, which he viewed as the age of the Holy Spirit.
And it was in a weird way, and perhaps I'm projecting a reading on here, but in a funny way, it was almost a time without God because the age of the Father is past, the patriarchy.
The age of Jesus, when we were redeemed through suffering and sacrifice, that's also past.
And now we're in an age of the Holy Spirit in which the world will become a giant monastery.
And we're going to spend all of our lives helping one another.
You could say it's a giant hospital.
That's actually, Nietzsche had a caustic line of socialism, a liberalism.
You want to create a gigantic hospital where we're all sick and we're just taking care of one another.
Obviously, he didn't want anything like that.
But that's sort of what he's describing.
He's basically describing communism.
I mean, the monastery is a communistic ideal.
There's no competition.
There's no antagonism.
There's helping and sharing.
And so he was sort of the, I guess you could almost weirdly say the first Marxist or the first progressive, the first liberal in a way.
And it shows how deep these ideas are.
This notion of dispensationalism, we think it comes from the Schofield Bible or something.
It's very deep.
And the notion of a progress towards an end of history and an end of suffering, that's really deep in Western history.
That's not just some new idea.
It's embedded within us like a Russian nesting doll.
But I guess what I was saying is that there has to be an Antichrist figure for this to happen.
You have to sort of go through the night before there's a dawn.
There has to be some antagonistic man of sin who is opposed to Christ in order for the Christ to arise.
And so again, I think this sort of, you know, creating hatred, creating the problem so that you can have the solution, this also goes way back.
Yeah, no, you're exactly right.
So yeah, as you say, the Schofield Bible, historians will tell you the Schofield Bible is what started Christian Zionism in the United States.
But you actually look at the history of Zionism, it actually started in England.
And it was the secret societies, Freemasonry, that actually brought Christian Zionism into America.
And some would even argue that Christian Zionism was embedded in the founding of America.
I mean, like, that's really why America rebelled against Britain in order to create a theocracy in order to achieve Christian Zionism.
So Christian Zionism goes to the world.
New Jerusalem.
Yes, they are.
That's right, exactly.
So all this goes way, way back.
And Schofield Bible, I mean, you can also argue it was a psyop, right?
The British printed Schofield Bible in order to spread Christian Zionism to the public because Christian Zionism was embedded in these secret societies, but now you needed to popularize Christian Zionism.
You did it for the Schofield Bible.
So you can argue like they've been doing this for centuries.
Like there are these hidden hands, secret societies that have been doing this for centuries because they have this grand plan that they want to achieve.
And I think you're absolutely right.
Part of this grand plan is to create the Antichrist.
I mean, like people say this online.
And it's the weirdest thing, but Peter Thiel, an eager of his name is the reptile.
And that's like the strange coincidence.
But, you know, I mean, like, again, I mean, I don't want to go too deep into this, but if you look at the history of the secret societies in America and Britain, they do plan ahead.
And what they often do is they raise children from birth, from the cradle, to achieve certain roles in the biblical prophecy.
I mean, they are that organized.
They are that evil.
They actually take children and basically nurture that child in order to achieve a certain role that they need in order to fulfill the script.
And I mean, like, if you just look at the world around the world today and you ask yourself, who is most likely to be the Antichrist?
I mean, it's Peter Thiel.
I mean, I mean, I hate to say this, but I mean, he has all the markings of the Antichrist.
I mean, he wants to create a surveillance state through Palm Terror.
He wants a return to theocracy, a world government.
I mean, I mean, you have to ask yourself, what drives this guy?
He wants to overcome the human condition.
I mean, as he said, I mean, that's what he meant by should humanity survive.
I don't think he wants us all to, you know, die off from starvation or war or something.
I think he wants to overcome the human condition by merging with machines.
That, you know, we became cyborgs when we had artificial hearts and limbs and we're now connected with computers through our hand, the phone.
And this is just the beginning of overcoming the mortal coil.
I think that's exactly how he thinks.
So it's a weird, you know, and he compared it where it was very funny because that type of thinking, you know, techno-futurism, the singularity, post-humanism, et cetera, you associate that with extreme liberals, perhaps, or atheists, no doubt, people who, you know, don't care for gods and church and all that kind of stuff.
It's the opposite with Peter Thiel.
He seems to be, he called himself orthodox in that interview.
He seems to, he has this interpretation or kind of skew of the Christian message, where with Christianity, we sort of perfect our soul and we're not bogged down by quotidian things.
We're kind of moving towards God.
And he sees that as a metaphor or analogy of moving towards the perfection of the machine, of pure logic, of artificial intelligence, of living forever, et cetera, et cetera.
So in some ways, Peter Thiel is the ultimate Christian, I mean, or anti-Christian.
You know, so to speak, he's offering this sort of, he's not countering Christianity or saying it's all bunk and superstition and lies.
He's instead saying, no, no, this is the real Christianity.
This is what God has in store for you, merging with the machine.
Yeah, I mean, I completely agree.
I mean, I mean, so, so, so I'll just go over some of his biographic details.
And like, like, I mean, he was a chess prodigy.
I mean, he, I mean, like, like, he was fantastic at chess, went to Stanford, where he became, where he was mentored by René Durade, you know, this very influential French philosopher who was very close with the Catholic Church.
I mean, I mean, I would be surprised if he has a Jesuit background, if he was part of these secret societies of the Jesuits.
He went to Stanford Law School, and then he joined PayPal.
Now, the PayPal Mafia, I mean, I mean, like, like, I don't think enough people have focused on the PayPal Mafia because just go back to founding of the internet.
Anyone could tell you at that time that whoever controlled e-payments, whoever can control commerce on the internet, these people would eventually come to control the internet.
So, my question then is, how did Peter Thiel get associated with these people?
And how did he become one of the top players in these people along with Ellen Muss and David Sachs?
I mean, I mean, like, it seems almost as though they were secret society onto themselves and that people in power put them there to achieve certain purposes.
But he was either extremely lucky or it was planned from the beginning.
And after, you know, PayPal, he was an early investor in Facebook and he found a comment here with his college roommate, Alex Karp.
And now he was an early supporter of Donald Trump.
He was an early supporter of JD Vance.
You can argue like JD Vance's career would not have been possible without Peter Thiel.
So this guy is the most brilliant man in the world.
If you actually listen to his interviews, if you actually read his writings, he doesn't come across as the most brilliant man in the world.
Or powerful factions are supporting him.
And he's just the front man. for these powerful factions, which I think is the most likely scenario.
And then you ask yourself, what's his plan from birth?
Who is his family?
I mean, we know very little about his family.
And why is this happening?
Why does he believe what he does?
Because he's unique in that Silicon Valley ecosystem.
Looks something like Jeff Bezos.
I mean, like, he's a very typical, so they call him a Silicon Valley billionaire, right?
I mean, like, he divorced.
He's trying to shoot rockets into space, like a phallus symbol.
So you're going to sort of see like his, like, like, like, you know, he's trying to satisfy his own ego, his own limitations.
Whereas Peter Thiel, clearly, he's a man on a mission.
I mean, and he's written quite a lot about the convergence of theology and artificial intelligence, right?
Transhumanism, as you call it.
So it's almost like they have a plan in motion and Peter Thiel is just a puppet put in front of us in order to seduce us into this plan.
It's very hard to explain how he got to where he is and why he believes what he does.
I mean, he's unique in that ecosystem.
Yeah, I agree.
And it's very interesting because he was almost about politics before he was about technology.
Exactly.
You know, when he was an undergrad, he actually wrote a book, you know, I think it was called The Diversity Myth, which was pretty standard anti-DEI kind of stuff.
But, you know, interesting that he was doing that.
He actually worked with William Bennett for a time before PayPal, actually.
So he was already involved with neoconservative politics before he became a billionaire.
It was almost like he had the ideas ready to go and he was well connected, but the one thing he was missing was a billion dollars.
So he had to do a little detour.
And yeah, even the whole PayPal bringing on Musk and so on, there is something haphazard about it.
And I don't want to be resentful or try to take anything away from them.
But when you look at the company, particularly Musk contributions to PayPal, it does seem dubious, to be honest, or at the very least, lucky.
And it is interesting that both of these figures were chosen, if we're to assume that, the sort of theological Peter Thiel and then also Elon Musk, who is constantly wanting to save the world.
You know, when he was a Reddit liberal, he was talking about how there's a 40% chance that we can stave off global warming now, that we have electric vehicles and so on.
Then he sort of moves off that.
And, you know, we need to desperately elect Donald Trump in order to save America and save free speech.
They want to kill you now is what he's saying.
America's Descent Into Civil War00:05:14
So they both sort of have, they're different figures, but they both sort of have messianic callings.
And it is interesting to compare them to just sort of a dude like Jeff Bezos, who's just a good businessman and loves hanging out with chicks.
much more understandable than these other figures um who are sort of asexual both of them in in different weird ways um but okay let me um let me change the so do you want to tie up any bows on the middle east uh situation in in the terms of the immediate future or
Or you actually have a lecture on World War III and how the Middle East, China even, certainly the conflict in Europe over Ukraine, how these pieces might fit together?
Yeah, I mean, I think World War III will mainly center in the Lamont and Anatolia.
That's part of all the eschatology of the biblical prophecy.
And so I see certain events playing out.
I see the Israelis basically continuing to do what they do in Gaza, but a much more accelerated pace.
I see the Israelis, or I actually, I'm going to say the Israelis, but I'll exit Mosque will be blown up.
Who, why, we won't know, but it'll be blown up.
It'll be a shock to the world, which is the intention.
I see a continuation of the conflict between Israel and Iran.
I see the United States sending in ground troops against Iran.
Iran will close out the Strait of Humus, which will just create an economic catastrophe all around the world.
It's going to severely impact the Southeast Asian economies of China, Japan, and South Korea.
I mean, it's, I mean, it's going to be a mess.
But again, it's all part of the plan.
It's all part of the script in order to achieve the media age.
And so I think that's what's going to happen in the Middle East.
Is this going to be the downfall of the United States in this war?
Because, I mean, we benefited tremendously from the two world wars in the 20th century.
And we joined both late.
We joined both arguably reluctantly.
And we were on, it was clear which side we were going to join, though, and we were supporting them.
But America is a very different country now.
It's hard to imagine.
Zoomers strapping on helmets and going off to Iran to go to war.
It's hard to imagine both the left and the right even acting as good soldiers on the home front in a conflict.
I wonder if the next big one is the last one for Uncle Sam.
That's the intention, actually.
So the eschatology requires Israel to achieve the Greater Israel Project, basically the Pax Judaica, for Israel, a dominant power in the Middle East.
And so you need to get rid of the United States somehow, right?
You need to remove the United States from the equation because the United States has not figured into the eschatology.
And the best way to do that is to provoke an American ground invasion of Iran because that thing will be so unpopular as to ignite a civil war in the United States, which will destabilize the United States and prevent the United States from interfering in Middle East affairs, right?
That I think is part of the eschatology.
Because if you look at all the eschatologies, whether it's Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, or Christian, you look at all the eschatologies, the United States will descend into civil war.
That's what they all believe.
That's what they all say.
So, and that's important for what's about to unfold in the Middle East, because the United States is the Pax Americana.
It's going to prevent the war from spiraling out of control.
But you need the war to spiral out of control in order to create the conditions for the Mississippi Age.
So you need to remove the United States from the equation.
The best way to do that is for the United States to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran.
And then this will provoke civil conflict in America.
And now America is longer part of the equation.
Israel is in a golden cage with the United States.
We give Israel billions.
At the same time, the American Empire constrains Israel.
That's exactly right.
You know, certainly, I mean, even Donald Trump constrains Bibby Netanyahu.
Surely Kamala Harris would have pushed back on his actions much more than Trump if she were elected and any Democrat would and many other Republicans would.
So it's a sort of golden cage.
It's been wonderful for quite some time.
They benefited from it, but everything has to come to an end.
So let's talk about the end of my country where I'm living right now.
Suffering Racial Abuse00:05:41
Well, first off, so what was it like?
So you moved to Canada, to Toronto when you were six.
You said, so you don't, I guess it would be hard to remember a whole lot about China before you immigrated.
Maybe you have flashes, postcard images of what China was like.
what was it like to be a, a Chinese immigrant kid in, in Canada?
Like, were you, did you feel like you were in paradise or did you maybe feel like you're an outsider or, you know, sort of both?
I mean, so, I mean, my family was very poor.
And so we lived in poor neighborhoods where there was these mixing of the different ethnicities.
But obviously, these are not really educated people.
They're not cosmopolitan.
And so I suffered a lot of racial abuse when I was younger.
And that's what sort of compelled me to want to leave Canada and apply to the United States because I wanted to just get out of Canada.
It's such a traumatic experience.
But quite honestly, sometimes when I go back to Canada, I still find it traumatic because it will stir up these childhood memories of racial abuse and all that.
But you know, I mean, like at the same time, I'm very thankful for Canada because grow up in the 80s and 90s was really the best time to be alive.
Nowadays, if you're a young person in Canada, it kind of sucks.
The country society has changed a lot.
But in the 80s, in the 90s, when I grew up, you were allowed a lot of personal freedom.
You could go out and explore the streets.
You could take risks.
You could fail.
It was not a big deal.
It was all part of the process of growing up.
I took my two kids, two boys, back to Canada over the summer.
And nowadays, they expect you as a parent to have your child on a leash, like literally a leash, to make sure the child is always within arm's reach.
And I was like, but if I did that, then how will my child ever learn resilience?
How will my child ever learn empathy, independence, risk-taking, creativity, imagination?
And so I was very fortunate to have grown up in the 80s rather than today.
So I'm thankful for what Canada provided.
At the same time, I did suffer a lot of racial abuse while growing up in Canada.
I understand that completely.
Growing up in the late 80s and early 90s, I was born in Massachusetts, but I moved to Texas.
And during the summer, we would ride our bikes from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. and maybe stop, go to mom for lunch and something like that.
But yeah, we would play a baseball game, play a football game, go on an adventure.
someone would get his knee skinned and hurt and so on.
But again, I don't want to stereotype here, but it does seem like the Zoomers are trapped on their computer or their phone or their video game console and this overprotective cocoon they live in where they barely leave their home.
Yeah, it makes me absolutely, I totally agree.
Just out of curiosity.
Oh, well, go on if you want to.
Yeah.
No, but also like the drug, the prevalence of drugs right now among children.
Like if you move in class, okay, because you're bored, because the teacher's boring, you move a bit, oh, you have ADHD, so you should take rid of it or whatever.
And like, like, like, that's the first option.
It's never like, maybe the teacher is boring and the kid is bored.
And maybe he's a boy, so he likes to move about.
And maybe he should go outside.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's not natural for kids to sit inside for eight, nine hours a day.
They need to be outside because that's, that's why we have bodies, right?
I mean, like, you know, if, you know, and so it's, it's, it's just, I mean, it's, it's just crazy the society that, the West has become.
I mean, these past 10 years.
I, I don't want to bring up bad feelings or anything, but you said you suffered a lot of racial abuse as a, as an outsider in Canada.
I don't doubt it.
Was that actually coming from white Canadians or was that you said you also grew in a mixed neighborhood?
What, what was the dynamic there?
Yeah, I mean, so, um, you know, there were different factors going on.
So I was poor.
So, you know, my father cut my hair.
Like, like, I, like, I wore like, you know, cheap clothes.
And so, and I really couldn't engage in the kids in the conversations they want to have, which like they love playing Sega, Nintendo.
We couldn't afford a Nintendo and Sega.
So, so there are a lot of different factors going on.
But, and I also had like a weird personality.
I'm just a weird person.
You know, I'm hyperactive.
I'm sensitive.
So, but, but yeah, I mean, like, like it was a mix of a mix of ethnicities.
I permanently grew up in a Greek neighborhood and these were also rich immigrants.
But, but, you know, I mean, like, I, I mean, it's just natural for kids to identify the outsider and to think of the outsider, you're not welcome.
So, you know, I mean, I was, I was hit, I was hit at it.
I mean, like, like the kids would punch me and stuff, but also, like, they wouldn't let me play their games.
I was never invited to their parties.
I was shunned and ostracized and verbally and physically abused.
Civil War Looms00:12:58
Yes.
Yeah.
But it gives you a perspective on things that maybe you wouldn't have if you're in it.
So there are benefits to these things.
But let's talk about America and the Civil War.
So obviously, we've had one of these before in the 1860s, and it led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Listening to your lecture on the coming Civil War, the 1860s is a precedent, but you seem to not think that something like that is going to happen.
That was a regional conflict over slavery and secession.
I mean, it was a war of secession in many ways.
I think the South did want to break away and the North wanted to maintain this empire.
But what do you think the upcoming Civil War is going to be like?
Because we, you know, the idea of a civil war is sort of in the air.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has said we need a divorce, a national divorce, a kind of velvet divorce.
We'll just agree to disagree.
But how exactly that would shake out remains to be seen.
Red state, blue state, they're fairly consistent, but there's a lot of, you know, Illinois is a massive dot of blue, Chicago in a red state, for example.
I live in Montana now.
I know exactly how Montanans would go.
Very deep red out here with not a lot of blue anywhere.
But also, there's also the idea of, you know, imagine yourself as the president and as presiding over the American empire.
We obviously benefit at the end of the day, despite the problems, from remaining intact.
A civil war is going to bring down the dollar as a reserve currency.
It's going to jeopardize overseas bases.
It's going to obviously jeopardize prestige, maybe indelibly.
And if I were president, I probably wouldn't let Montana go if it wanted to do so peacefully.
You're in a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma, but maybe that you should take the Lincoln option.
So anyway, I've set up this.
I've put out some ideas.
How do you think this is going to shake out, A, and then B, I want you to talk also about the sort of like deeper currents you see of what's really causing this?
But first, we'll stick with the pragmatic.
How do you think this might shake out?
Okay.
So I think it will not be a war.
As you say, like in that there'll be two sides, you have two armies and they fight each other because, you know, I mean, like, that's not what's going to happen.
But what we'll see is in the first, I think that the Civil War might last 20, 20, 30 years.
And I think what will emerge at the end of the Civil War is a Christian theocracy where the United States embraces Christian nationalism as a defining ideology.
And that Christian Zionism, sorry, Christian nationalism sort of like overrides the constitution.
That's what I think will be the most likely scenario in 20, 30 years' time.
And to get to that point, you'll have different stages.
In the first stage, you'll see an acceleration of political violence.
So public figures are targeted.
You'll see massive public unrest.
So going back to the LA riots, right, against ICERAIDS, right?
You will see an acceleration of the police state, the National Guard in different cities.
Then the first stage, I think, ends when there's a defining political moment that radically transforms the political landscape of this country.
And I think that will be Trump's third term.
I think Trump intends to continue to be president.
How he will do so, I don't know, right?
I mean, it's possible he runs his son, Don Jr., and he's the vice president.
Who knows, okay?
But I think his intention is to have a third term.
And I think that from all his actions, you can interpret it as he wants to stay in there for as long as he can, right?
It's possible he dies out in office, but I think if he stays healthy, then he's going to want that third term.
If he does that and he succeeds, I think he will likely succeed because he'll cheat in 2028, you will have massive revolt in the country.
You have cities like New York, Boston, who are open who are open defiance.
Some states like California, they might even choose to secede from the Union.
And now you're going to have a massive conflict throughout the nation.
Most of the country will actually not be affected.
If you're just living in a suburb of Connecticut, this may not even affect you.
But if you live in a city of New York City or Boston, you're going to have these massive sieges.
Then as in the third stage, then I think you'll have like just a breakdown of the United States, you know, and different states will fight against each other.
Different cities will fight against each other.
But eventually, I think the red states, like Texas maybe, they will become dominant and they will eventually reform the United States of America.
And honestly, this is no different from what happened during Roman times, during the Roman Empire.
I mean, you hear a constant process of civil war and a great leader emerges and then you have empirical consolidation and then maybe 20 years, 30 years later, civil war again.
So it's a constant cycle.
And quite honestly, I think that's going to, what's going to happen in the United States.
At the same time, and this is what's really interesting is even as this civil war gets worse and worse, America will continue to expand in the Americas.
America's going to claim territory in Canada, in Mexico, in South America.
So I think that is what I imagine to happen over the next 20, 30 years to America.
And again, this fits into the eschatology because America needs to be isolated from the rest of the world because the rest of the world needs to achieve the second coming.
And so the Civil War, this expansion throughout the Americas, it will distract America long enough for the events to unfold in the Middle East in the way that they should.
So, yeah.
And so you think it's a, well, go ahead, finish your thought.
Yeah.
And also, I think like one of the hidden hands in all the civil war will be the Catholic Church.
I think the Catholic Church is a much more dominant player underlying American politics than people imagine it to play.
I mean, like, look, I mean, J.D. Benz, I mean, like he is, he will be, regardless of what happens, I mean, he will be a very dominant political player in the next few decades.
And he's a very young person, right?
The new pole of the Catholic Church is American.
So I would not be surprised if there are certain institutional elements within the Catholic Church, maybe OpenStai, the Jesuits, who see a Civil War as an opportunity to gain power in America.
Because remember, before the Anglo-American Empire, it was a Catholic empire.
And so how do you reconstitute the millennium?
How do we reconstitute the Catholic Empire?
Well, you either bring America into the fold, you call up America, or you cause America to disintegrate, right?
So I think the Catholic Church will also play a very important role in the coming decades.
And so you see the Civil War as left versus right, in effect.
I mean, the first Civil War was regional.
You couldn't, well, there was a little bit of slavery in Massachusetts, but you couldn't have a massive gone with the wind style plantation in Connecticut or something like that.
There was regional differences of geography that created different economies that were interconnected, of course, but were different.
And this led to a regional conflict, but it wasn't left versus right exactly.
You had different types of people on both sides, but you think that the red state, blue state divide, left versus right, right versus left in this case, that is going to be it.
And we're a hyper-polarized society.
This is how we think now.
Everything's coded as Republican and Democrat.
If we're going to break down, those are going to be the fault lines.
I think on a surface, that's a fault line, but I don't think that that's what happened.
I think the larger conflict is between establishment interests versus emerging elite interests, right?
So the example is Donald Trump, right?
So in 2020, the establishment elite coalesced together to get rid of Donald Trump, right?
I mean, like $60 billion was spent on an election.
The entire elite apparatus, the media, the financial sector, the deep state, CIA, they all banded together to get rid of Donald Trump.
And back to Peter Thiel, remember, what was interesting is 2016, 2024, Peter Thiel was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump.
But in 2020, he withdrew his support. for Donald Trump.
So it seemed like at that time, the entire establishment got together and decided we need to get rid of this guy because he's a liability to imperial interests.
And then, you know, Joe Biden came in and they recognized that Joe Biden is actually even worse for imperial interests.
And that's why they let Donald Trump to come back in.
But obviously, if you're Donald Trump, you're kind of pissed off about what happened in 2020.
I mean, so I think Project 2025, the underlying hidden agenda of Project 2025 is to start attacking the basic infrastructure of the establishment.
And I think that is what's really driving the civil war.
These elites come, you know, Peter Turchin, the historian, has a term for this elite overproduction.
You have limited positions of power and status.
You have too many elites.
They all want these positions of power.
So they're going to have to fight it amongst themselves.
So I think left-right is what we see.
But behind it are these deep institutional elements, these interests that are in conflict with each other.
And left-right are basically puppets or tools.
I mean, you can make argument in TEFA, Antifa.
I mean, it's not an organic organization.
I mean, like, it's almost like a FBI undercover organization.
And then on the right, you have Patriot Front or whatever they call it, but it's so blatant.
I mean, what they're doing.
Now, why would you do that?
Why would you incubate these organizations?
Well, I mean, you would incubate these organizations if you want to activate them for civil unrest.
So I think in the first stage, it would be establishment versus these Trump-aligned conservative factions that are trying to overthrow the establishment, including Chris Zionists, including the Mormons, including the Catholics.
But eventually you reach a point where the establishment is overthrown, and now these factions fight amongst themselves.
So I think what's really important for us to understand is the left is not a factor in the civil war.
The left is extremely disorganized.
I mean, these past few decades, the left has done a tremendous job in consuming itself, in destroying itself through woke ideology, through its alignment with the establishment, through COVID lockdowns.
I mean, like, the left has absolutely no credibility in America nowadays.
It just doesn't.
I mean, like, and like, quite honestly, the left, they're not going to die for what they believe because they don't believe anything.
You look at people like Obama, AOC, right?
Do they stand for anything?
I don't think they stand for anything.
All they stand for really is, you know, like playing the game, moving up.
But Obama's not going to die for what he believes in.
Whereas people on the right will die for what they believe in.
And so I don't think the left is a factor in the civil war.
Yeah.
Well, there's also something that I've noticed is that the first nine months or so of the Trump second term, it's been this attack on the establishment, but without replacing it with anything.
You know, Elon Musk came out with a chainsaw and said, well, you know, we're destroying bureaucracy.
Now, I don't think he really destroyed all that much, but it was an attack on USAID.
It was an attack on long-term bureaucrats, et cetera.
Universities On Fire00:04:12
Even something as trivial as getting Jimmy Kimmel fired.
I don't know if you heard this.
He's this very boring and stupid talk, a late night talk show.
Well, previously in American history, late night was actually a very unifying thing.
Johnny Carson spoke to all Americans, middle class, the wealthy elite, even working class people.
They all liked Johnny Carson and they thought the celebrities he talked to were their friends.
And Bob Euchre would come on and talk about baseball.
It was very unifying and homey.
And Jimmy Kimmel is nothing like that.
He's polarized himself and he's boring.
But even here, you have an attack on the institution.
This thing is falling.
Let's just push it over the edge.
But at least from my standpoint, there's nothing, there's no institution that's replacing it.
You know, there's not a Trump USAID, or there's not like a new vision of government that's replacing what they're tearing down.
There's not a Trump late night host who brings everyone together.
They're in the stage of liquidating all of these institutions that are actually 20th century institutions.
They're quite old, but they've all been coded liberal.
Attack the universities.
Let's bring Harvard is going to be neutered.
They're going to pay us money.
We might even take them down.
They're getting rid of these things, but they're not presenting hegemonic institutions in their place.
At least that's my perception.
So, you know, I guess what you're saying is that at the end of it, it's going to be Christian nationalism.
It's going to be just full-on, you know, it's in the bible, 10 Commandments.
Baby uh, bake me the cake.
Convert the gays.
I mean um, I guess it makes sense in the sense that I don't think Trumpism has any core belief other than Trump himself, and he is going to die at some point, maybe soon, and something has to fill that void.
There's no other personality that can fill it.
Maybe you, some sort of hardcore thing, but something that resonates with American history and, and to be frank puritanism uh, Biblical fundamentalism that resonates with American history, from my perspective, unfortunately.
But you have to find something to, to to fill that void.
Yeah, so I mean, what I will say is that um, if you're a Christian Zionist, you believe like the media, the judiciary and the universities are fundamentally liberal institutions and therefore you have to burn down these institutions if you are to spread your Christian nationalist ideology.
Once you have the idea, ideology in place, and these institutions will come about that support the ideology.
So um, I don't think the intention is is to replace the universities.
I think the intention is to burn them down because like, why do you need that?
Why do you need universities?
They're just propaganda machines for the liberal elite.
I mean why, at this point sadly yes yeah like, why just burn them down like like like, who needs them, right?
I yeah, that's why i'm i'm just speaking for myself I am ambivalent about a lot of this because I I don't like the destructiveness and I feel like so much of the destructiveness is very stupid.
It's, it's people who resent the idea of Harvard.
You know, I I think that the idea of people gathering 20 people gathering at a table and discussing Milton is a great thing and and a necessary thing for building the elite, and I feel like there is a sort of stupid resentment against the idea of education itself.
Media Pushback Limits00:12:16
That being said, it's very hard for me to defend Jimmy Kimmel or defend Harvard as it is at this moment, moment, I sort of reluctantly agree with the Trump movement that these institutions have gone haywire.
So look, I mean, look, it's these liberal institutions that created Trump.
Okay.
I mean, like, it's very important we understand this.
Trump is not a self-creation.
He's a creation of the liberal institutions that hate him.
Okay.
So in 2016, you know, Trump became popular because he was being the anti-Obama.
I mean, he was going to, he was this populist hero, right?
Why?
Because the Obama years create this tremendous inequality between the haves and the have-nots.
And I mean, people were just sick of this.
Remember, in 2008, Obama came in promising that he would clean up Wall Street.
And all he did was build Wall Street and punish these millions of homeowners who lost their homes because of Wall Street shenanigans, because of Wall Street corruption.
And Trump promised that I will fix this.
When he came into office, he was sabotaged from day one by the liberal elite, right?
The media was spreading this Russian hoax that Trump was a Putin spy.
And you had certain individuals in Trump's cabinet that were in open rebellion against Trump, who refused to take Trump's orders.
In fact, you had the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, say very proudly, I called the Chinese and said, don't worry about this guy.
When I take orders from this guy, he's a loose cannon.
Don't worry about it.
That's true.
You don't do that.
That basically is treason.
But he said it with relish.
The entire media establishment went against Trump.
And then in 2020, as I mentioned, the entire establishment spent $6 billion to get rid of this guy.
And that should have been it.
But then you had January 6th, which was, I mean, arguably a federal operation.
But then after that, you had the liberals try to bankrupt Trump.
I mean, there were six civil suits against Trump.
They were trying to form in prison.
You had these judges in Colorado who were trying to take him out like out of the ballot.
You had this raid on Mar-a-Lago for who knows why, but the FBI rated him.
So, I mean, the media, the liberals were obsessed with this guy.
And because Trump was being persecuted by the liberal elite, the institutional elite, it made him a folk hero in America.
Americans don't like that when the government bullies someone.
I mean, it goes against the very soul of America to be bullied by the government like that.
When Trump was being bullied throughout all this time.
And so you had this former president who is a billionaire, and now he's like a folk hero.
He's the underdog.
And now that he's back in office, he has a popular mandate to bull off all these institutions that bullied him past eight years.
So I'm sorry to say this, but these liberal institutions did this to themselves.
At no point was there any self-reflection.
At no point did anyone say, you know what, we're going too far.
We say we're calling Hitler, but are we creating Hitler?
Like, remember, because Hitler would not have been Hitler without the popular mandate that he had because of these decades of frustration among the German people.
Yes, I agree with so much of what you've said.
But he's like a wrecking ball.
I mean, it's fascinating.
That's the intention.
So it's a force higher than these liberal institutions.
It's not like the dean of a Harvard college is truly like the elite in the sense of the man calling the shots.
And so I think there were so many things with Trump.
As you said, when it was perceived that he was being persecuted by Jack Smith, that's when he became popular again and they threw Ron DeSantis out the window.
Also, January 6th, you saw all of these billionaires, maybe they're sort of former liberal billionaires, counter billionaires, you could say, who came on side because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, even if they ultimately support Israel, they are more likely to push back.
And I do think that there was a certain elite that wanted Trump.
Despite all of it, they thought that he was going to be the one that would allow Israel to pursue its dreams in the most expansive way possible.
And thus, Trump isn't this counter elite.
He isn't the anti-war president.
He's actually brought in by certain elites that want this.
And yeah, in terms of what he creates, it's not even necessarily his fault, just to be fair, but in terms of what he creates, the vibe that he brings to the country, there's no doubt the Charlie Kirk assassination as an example, we do seem to be getting closer to street level kinetic violence day by day.
I don't think you think this.
I don't think any reasonable person thinks that we're not going to see another one of these things like Charlie Kirk, someone who is deeply politically coded and symbolic, getting killed, getting roughed up at the very least, being violently attacked in broad daylight for the simple reason of sending a message.
And the message, the violence there becoming so much more expansive on social media.
Millions of people are seeing it and feeling it right then and there.
And thus Trump sort of brings in the civil war.
Maybe to be overly fair here, maybe not, you know, I think he did urge people to do J6 and whatever, but to be fair, overly fair, not really to the fault of his own, but just the sort of energy that he brings to the table.
He brings an energy of violence.
I think a lot of liberals have gotten in trouble for saying this, but I think they're actually right about that.
And we're not going to cool things down.
We're not going to go back to normal.
We're not going to elect Mitt Romney or something like that, where we can just sort of tune out of politics, you know, maybe make fun of the president here and there.
With Trump, the general social mood of the country is more existential.
I think with this Charlie Kirk shooting, America has another 9-11 moment.
I think it's a watershed moment.
And I think you're absolutely right in that there's no going back out of this.
It's opened up box.
And remember, after 9-11, two major things that happened were the Patriot Act, the beginning of the surveillance state, and then these wars in the Middle East.
And I think that with this Charlie Cook shooting, you'll have both.
Yeah, you have both.
You're going to have Palantir become dominant.
I mean, they've been planning this for like a long, long time, right?
That the infrastructure for all this.
And I'm sure there are lots of legislation already written that they're going to put the ram through over the next few months.
In memory of Charlie Kirk, to celebrate his memory, right?
They'll probably call it the Charlie Kirk Act or whatever, the Patriot Act II or something.
And I also think this will be the impetus for America's invasion of Iran.
Somehow they're going to connect it to.
And, you know, because like after 9-11, they invaded Iraq.
And like there was actually no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
In fact, Iraq was an enemy of Al-Qaeda, but they invaded Iraq anyway.
So I think this is a watershed moment.
And I don't think you can overestimate the impact on the American psyche of what happened.
They're already doing military recruitment on Charlie Kirk's behalf.
Charlie Kirk never served in the military.
I mean, you know, for what it's worth.
And Charlie Kirk, by the way, was the one who vocally told Trump not to bomb Iran.
He told Trump, we have actually no business bombing Iran.
The American people don't want a war in the Middle East.
I mean, Turley Cook Kirk was one of the good guys in Trump's orbit.
I mean, he was one of the retreating forces, right?
Sure, I'll grant you that.
But I do agree that he no doubt went and told Donald Trump that because he was getting pressure from his sort of anti-war base.
And the amazing thing, but maybe even predictive thing is that they're going to use him to inspire a war.
One thing that I've also noticed here is that I think so many liberals want the establishment to push back.
The media does push back to some degree, to the degree they can.
But they almost want these governors to stand up to Trump.
And they have to some Kritzker and Newsom to some degree.
But they're almost waiting for some establishmentarian wasp in a tweed coat to just come out of the woodwork and say, no, we don't do that here.
And I think what I've seen in Donald Trump's second term is that that doesn't actually exist.
You know, they are going to send the National Guard into California.
Tim Cook, Mr. Liberal Apple, left-coated company.
What are they going to do?
They're going to come to the White House and kiss Trump's ass.
The mainstream media, are they going to push back on behalf of free speech and democracy?
No.
They're actually going to fire the people whom Trump hates.
There's nothing coming from the so-called establishment because that's not really the establishment.
These institutions, long-standing institutions, you know, the New York Times, ABC, Harvard University, all these, these are 20th century institutions that have now been coded as liberal.
And people want them to push back, but they just won't and they can't because they're not an actual elite.
They're a sort of like sub-elite of something else that might actually like what Donald Trump is doing.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, the liberal elite is the professional managerial class, right?
They're not the owners.
They're not the bosses.
It's the deep state, the uh, um, that that are the bosses, and we'll never know who they are.
Uh, one point, one thing I will say is: remember, during Trump first term, the liberal elite basically sold their soul to the deep state, right?
Because rather than reflect on what they did wrong, that would that would allow for the election of Donald Trump, rather than recognize their own limitations and commit to certain changes in their behavior, they decided that, you know what, we'll get the deep state to go after Trump and create a soft court, right?
Robert Mueller in his report will definitely indict Trump, right?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff will overthrow Trump or whatever.
But basically, the Liberal Elite sold their soul to the deep state.
And now, and then after the Deep State realized, we're better off with Donald Trump because we need to create wars in the Middle East in order to expand the military industrial complex.
Now, the Liberal Elite is kind of stuck because, as you say, they don't have any real power and they've sold their soul a long time ago.
Fertile Ground for Chaos00:10:03
Yes.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, let's do this.
We have about 20 more minutes to go or so, and you've been very generous with your time.
And I've really been invigorated by this discussion.
But let me open it up to some questions, which you could entertain if you're willing.
Okay, sure.
Yeah.
Atheus, you're up there first.
Go for it.
Yeah.
I had a question about the, it was briefly talked about, which is the idea that, you know, Johnny Carson being, you know, a very unifying figure or figure and how everything is kind of self-curated.
So like if you want news, you kind of, you go on the internet and you get news for yourself.
I guess my question would be, like, what do you, how much of it do you attribute to this kind of theory of a civil war of this idea that nothing is unifying anymore?
I think the only last thing that's unifying really is probably sports, but I don't really think that's kind of powerful.
Yeah, I think that's exactly right.
You have a breakdown over the past 20 years of three things that were unifying.
Ideology, narrative stories, and institutions, right?
So Johnny Carson was an institution in America.
Television was an institution in America because everyone just sat down as a family and watched TV together.
That's what you did in the 60s and 50s and 70s.
So all these unifying forces, especially ideology, like what was America stand for?
What is America about?
Like what is the American dream?
I mean, it's died out.
I mean, like, it's been ruptured.
And again, there's really no going back to it.
The only unifying ideology on the horizon that I see is Christian nationalism, to return to America's roots as the new Jerusalem, as a city on the hill.
That's about it.
And I think that's why you're seeing what you're seeing.
I mean, the fact that after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, you had a lot of people celebrate his death is a really bad omen for America.
It just tells us that there's no shame, there's no guilt, there's no sense of civility in America anymore.
I mean, like we've all been primed by social media to behave with outrage, to behave with extreme emotion.
And there's really no space for self-reflection, for restraint, for civility anymore in America.
Yes.
I think the I was just going to add one more thing.
It does seem like, you know, whoever has the strongest channel of information, which would be like the theocracy of the Catholic Church or something, you know, if you have like the most unifying channel for a message, you would then become the establishment of messaging people.
So, you know, I guess I'm just reinforcing and agreeing with what you're saying.
Yeah, again, I would not underestimate the power and the reach of the Catholic Church.
I mean, they have a hierarchy.
They're extremely well organized and they've been lying in wait for hundreds of years, right?
I mean, like, there's this, there's this, for hundreds of years, there's been this secret war between the Jesuits and the Freemasons.
And this war has spilled over to America.
And this war has never gone away.
So, yeah, I mean, like, watch out for the Catholic Church.
In fact, you know, I mean, like, look at Candice Owens and just look at what she says, what she does.
I think a lot of her agenda aligns with that of the Catholic Church.
Do you think Christian nationalism will be inflected by Catholicism?
Yeah, North America might have been Catholic at the beginning of the conquest.
That's for sure.
But this is a Protestant country, but maybe that was the 20th century Christianity, which was that everyone was Protestant, including the Catholics and the Jews.
They were just another version of Protestantism and that that's something that's older, in fact.
And do you think Catholicism will be the driving force of Christian nationalism or will it go more to a Protestant fundamentalism?
I mean, if you look at the situation right now, certainly the Catholic Church and the Mormons have huge advantages.
But as you say, what matters is the soul of this country.
What matters is what Americans fundamentally believe.
And I think that Americans are fundamentally anti-Catholic Church.
They don't like hierarchy.
They don't like the idea of a pope.
I mean, Americans fundamentally believe in individualism and in liberty and direct access to God.
So yeah, I think the Catholic Church and the Mormons have a huge advantage, but as you say, what will actually happen, we don't know.
Also, we have to remember that this is a dynamic, like the situation is very dynamic.
And so we're discounting geophysical events, like real geophysical events that could happen to America over the next 20 years.
I know people argue about climate change, but what we can't argue is that the Earth undergoes extreme weather now and then.
We could be facing a mini ice age in next 20 years.
And if you have a mini ice age, all bets are off the table, right?
Because you're going to have a major depopulation event.
So it's a very dynamic situation.
I'm not going to say the Catholic Church will end up as the winners.
I'm not going to say the Protestants aren't as the winners.
I think Christian theocracy is the end result, but which faction determines this Christian theocracy, I can't really say at this point.
Interesting.
Henry, you're next.
Yeah, a lot of the discussion lately has been about the three Abrahamic religions and for obvious reasons and potential manifestation of their eschatology.
But I'm curious, how do you see the other world religions playing into this event?
You know, the Buddhists perhaps have less political influence, but the Hindus and most interestingly, the atheist Chinese, like one big mystery for me is what the relationship is between China and Israel.
So I'm just curious how you see that playing out.
Yeah, that's a great question.
So I don't really know much about Hinduism.
I don't think it's eschatological, right?
I mean, like, it's like Buddhism.
It's not eschatological in the way that the Abrahamic religions are eschatological.
And that's important because it's eschatology that drives geopolitics.
It's eschatology that wants you to go and do something in Jerusalem.
So I do know a lot about China because I obviously live in China and I'm Chinese.
China's not interested in geopolitics.
China's not interested in what's happening in the Middle East.
It's interested in trade.
It's interested in exporting its cheap labor overseas.
But China's not going to militarily intervene on anyone's behalf outside Chinese borders.
It doesn't do that.
It's not going to invade Taiwan.
I know there's a lot of discussion that China might use all this upheaval around the world to reclaim Taiwan.
China's not going to do that.
It doesn't have to do that.
China is big enough as it is.
It's called the Middle Kingdom because it sees itself as a universe onto itself.
It wants to be left alone, basically.
And that's the worldview of China.
We're the Middle Kingdom.
Everyone else is barbaric.
They're slaughtering themselves in the Middle East.
That's because what they do.
That's what they do.
They just laugh themselves over there.
Let's ignore it.
I live in China and I check the news every day and the Chinese are not reporting what's happening around the world.
China's just not interested in what's happening in the world.
The other thing is that if you just look at the economic situation in China right now, it's very, very unstable.
And there's a real fear that the economy will get worse and worse.
And I think the Congress Party is more concerned about domestic unrest than it is about overseas wars.
So it's interesting because you learned English in Canada from the time you were six.
Do you think that your worldview is obviously inflected by your education and experience?
But I think my impression is also that you're really tapped into social media and thinking in the West and in America.
Like you, you, I presume you're following Twitter in a way that you're not looking at a Chinese newspaper, which might be operating in a different realm, as you say.
Yeah.
So the messaging is more controlled in China.
So if you want to know the official line, then you read the Chinese newspaper, which will not take very long.
But if you really want to understand the geist in China, if you really want to understand how people are thinking, you need to walk the streets.
You need to see them in restaurants.
You need to analyze their faces.
This is different in the West because social media, I mean, it's really like the id of America, right?
I mean, like, despite analyzing social media, you get a deep sense of the fundamental feelings that are underpinning American society right now.
Spectacle and Mass Perception00:04:12
And so I see a lot of hatred.
I see a lot of anger.
I see a lot of confusion.
I see a lot of anxiety.
Yeah, definitely.
Andrew J. Hey, what's going on?
I'm just curious.
As far as like a next 9-11 moment, excuse me, do you guys think like a cybersecurity event, like a global or national or regional kind of hacking event from another state like Russia or even like a corporation could kind of occur?
I could see something like that happening in the next 10 to so years, just because we're so on our phones at this point.
It seems to me like fertile ground for some sort of like terrorist attack.
And then you have the misinformation of, oh, that's a false flag.
It was really Israel who did it.
You know, I could see something like that happen.
Just want to get your guys' take on that.
That's a fantastic question.
So I say that 9-10 was like 9-11.
And not in that like Trudder Kirk was assassinated.
What mattered was a spectacle, right?
So after 9-11, what you saw on TV all the time on constant replay was the planes hitting the Twin Towers and the Twin Towers coming down.
It was to induce trauma.
You do that through spectacle, through real life spectacle, right?
And so remember, like after the shooting, that graphic video was unleashed on the internet.
Everyone saw it.
You didn't want to see it.
You just saw it by accident.
And guess what?
It's stuck in your mind.
And that's going to have long-term psychological consequences.
It's going to change the psychics.
It's going to change the worldview.
So that's what you want to create.
You want to create a violent spectacle that traumatizes the population, hypnotizes in a way that allows you to program the population in a way that you want.
Remember, after 9-11, the Patriot Act was rammed through Congress.
And then George Bush says, we're going to invade Iraq.
And people were never like, why are we doing this?
Like, you know, because people were so shocked by the event that they just sort of passively accepted it.
And, you know, that's what trauma victims do.
Like, like, they just accept the world around them because they just disassociate it from the world around them, right?
So the idea is to create the spectacle.
So that's why hacking doesn't really do anything.
Like, how are you traumatized if your computer goes off for a week?
Like, who cares?
Right?
The point is to create a spectacle.
The other thing that's really important is that if you look at all the major spectacles of the past 20th century, including the killing of JFK, 9-11, and Charlie Kirk, you will see massive occult symbolism around the event, right?
So Charlie Kirk was killed 33 weeks after the inauguration of Donald Trump.
He was killed 34 days before his 32nd birthday.
It took 33 hours for the FBI to capture the culprit.
The press conference lasted 33 minutes.
The shooter was 22 years old.
I could go on and on, but it's all programmed into the event to create a subconscious fear and trauma.
And I mean, I mean, it's all really well orchestrated.
I mean, this event must have been like years in the making.
Maybe they didn't know it would be, maybe they didn't pick the victim yet, but they wanted to create a 9-11 spectacle in order to traumatize the masses in order to push their agenda further.
Fascinating.
Do you think COVID was kind of, it wasn't a spectacle, but I'm seeing in this hypothetical cybersecurity event that I'm talking about, like a mass hacking or something like that.
That I was kind of thinking of something like COVID, where it was just, it was shocking, but it was also, you know, debilitating from your normal way of life.
That's, I guess, more so than a 9-11 kind of spectacle event, like you're saying.
Yeah, I think COVID was an experiment.
Mudstill Echoes00:03:21
I think the situation got out of control And they responded.
And in their response, they recognized, oh my God, the masses are just sheep.
They'll just do whatever we tell them to do.
And they got away with it.
And so I think the next thing will be the actual event, which is maybe implanting microchips into your bodies.
That I think is the real intention.
I think COVID might have been an experiment.
Regular guy?
So you talk about this Christian theocracy and the alternatives that it could be.
You said it could be Catholic, it could be Protestant.
You mentioned the Mormons, which that's kind of a far cry to what the typical American is used to in terms of theology.
But who do you think is when, and you say that's going to wrap up the conflict in the U.S. that we're going to see?
Who is ultimately going to be the real loser of this Christian theocracy and who's going to be the winners?
Like, is it going to be the common man because they're going to be issued a wife?
Or is it going to be, and are the losers going to be non-heteronormative people?
Or is it going to be women?
Liberals.
Or just atheists, even if they're white and male.
Yeah.
So I don't see history as a conflict between individuals and between peoples.
I see history as kind of a conflict over ideas and narratives and ideology, right?
So at the founding of America, there was this major conflict between the Enlightenment ideal and the Christian utopia ideal, right?
I mean, remember, like the pilgrims came to America to create a Christian utopia, the New Jerusalem.
And that sort of got sidelined because of these Enlightenment ideals that have now manifested themselves into a multicultural, liberal, secular society.
And that I think will be the real loser.
Like, you know, goodbye, multiculturalism.
We don't want that.
We want everyone to be Christian.
Goodbye, secularism.
Goodbye, liberalism.
So, so, so, I mean, the very idea of liberalism will die in this process.
I mean, like, that's what I think is going to happen.
I think that.
Yeah, go on, regular guy.
I asked that because of, well, in addition to the Enlightenment versus Christian theology in the U.S., there was the slaver culture, which we saw emerge in the 19th century, and the infamous mudstill speech, which says that, you know, society is hierarchical and some people need to have tragic lots where they need to be manual laborers.
And if we're not on top, we might be at the bottom of the mud still.
And I'm wondering who Would be at the bottom of the mud still in terms of groups in this in the Christian Christian theocracy you see emerging.
Yeah, that's a good question.
Um, and I don't really see the sort of the economic um hierarchy changing that much.
Behind Closed Doors00:00:55
I mean, like, you know, it's very easy for these liberal elites to don on new clothes, right?
Like before they were liberals and now they're just priests.
Like, what's the difference, really?
Um, what they do behind closed doors is their own business, right?
But what they do in public, uh, I mean, they will pay adherence to the um theocracy, but you know, behind closed doors, they'll still operate their secret societies, which will be liberal in nature.
So, I don't really see the economic hierarchy changing that much.
Hey, um, Richard, I apologize, but I need to go because I have another clock, 11 o'clock.
So, no problem.
Yeah, we have really benefited from your being here.
I definitely hope you can come back on again.
Um, because we just definitely, but uh, thank you, and uh, we'll we'll talk to you soon.