There's the old joke about the the Greek professor who dedicated his entire life to studying two words: "Men" and "Death" (which in Greek means "on the one hand and on the other") and he was dying, and the students gathered around them and they asked him if he had any regrets, and he said, "Yes. If I had it to do all over again I'd concentrate on Death." So I'm sort of following in that tradition. Obviously, Logos is an important word and I have to use it because we have no equivalent in English, and the best proof of that is from the beginning of the Gospel of St. John which we've all read since we were children. And the first sentence is "In beginning was the Word." I had no idea what that meant. I spent, you know, years, not as if I sat up late at night losing sleep pondering it but every time I read it I couldn't tell what was going on - until I studied Greek. And then I realized that there were five pages in Liddell & Scott's ancient Greek lexicon just for one word. Because it is such an important word to that culture. This word is in many ways the basis of Greek culture, and the reason why we still think the Greek is an important language and why the Greeks are one of the pillars of the civilization we live in.
You know I've been traveling around a lot. Two of the places I've been are India and Iran, and part of what I'm realizing is that pretty much if you take those three places that covers a large part of human culture on the face of this earth. Because what you're talking about is the Anglo-American Empire which rules the world and certainly dominates the Anglophone world where people speak English. Islam which is also a huge world unto itself, and India which is also a huge world. I could probably include China in this but I haven't been to China so I'm just gonna leave China out. I think what these three cultures have in common is: first of all, that they were all interconnected during the sixth century BC when the term Logos came into existence. It came into existence as a philosophical concept with an Anaxagoras who was one of the Ionian philosophers, Ionia being a Greek colony in Asia Minor. So you have here a kind of intersection of Persia and Greece at this time (that would eventually lead to wars between these two countries) but if you have an intersection between Persia and Greece you also have an intersection between Greece, Persia and India.
All of these countries were related. People trampled back and forth, invading each other. India never invaded anybody but it was invaded by both Darius and Alexander the Great. So at this crucial moment, the world sort of comes to an understanding that there's a basic reality out there. "It's not water": this is what Thales of Mellitus (the first Ionian philosopher) said. No, it can't be anything material. It's got to be something spiritual. And the term that Anaxagoras used was "Logos" on the one hand, and "Nous" which means 'mind' on the other. Suddenly, across the world - by this world we want to talk about a large chunk of the civilized world - you had this concept emergent. In India it was the Vedas talking about Rita or RTA. The Zoroastrians talk about Ahura Mazda. The Greeks talk about Logos and at the same time (the sixth century) you have the Hebrews writing the book of Genesis, which is about beginnings. When you talk about the beginnings you're talking about metaphysics, and when you're talking about metaphysics you're talking about God.
The New Atheism
It was like a dance craze or a moral panic or something like that. Suddenly everybody was talking about the New Atheism. Basically four books came out. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris - all on the topic of Atheism. All people professors or writers or journalists, all standing up and thumping their chests about how macho they were because they didn't believe in God. Some people say that it was a reaction to the threat of Fundamentalism both Islamic and "domestic", which is to say Christian Fundamentalism. I think there's a better explanation, which I would like to get into as we get along here, but I think it was a sign of a crisis because I think now we've got a severe crisis throughout the world. And by the world I'm going to say once again the Anglophone world, the Islamic world and India all have a crisis and the crisis is basically a metaphysical crisis. A crisis of foundation - no foundation. That's what these three empires, these three cultures, have in common. The oldest of course is the the Indian or Hindu culture. In the 6th century BC there was this Universal attempt to come up with some type of understanding of the basic structure of the universe. The Indians made a valiant beginning with Rita, and then the whole thing collapsed, and India became the classic example of a country with no Logos, as Hegel would describe it. The symbol of Indian cosmology is the earth as a semicircle, it's sitting on the back of four elephants, and the elephants are standing on a turtle. So what's the obvious question now? What's the turtle standing on? The answer on the Internet is "turtles all the way down". Well, that's not an answer. You can't have turtles all the way down. So this wrecked Indian culture. They lost their moral bearings. Usury became rampant, and not only did usury become rampant usury became codified in the cultural system! And it was known as the Caste System. So basically we had the Brahmin caste which were basically the creditors, and you had the Untouchables who were the lenders, and it was sanctified as a religious construction.
That "foundationlessness" is now symptomatic of the entire world. The crisis which came about in the West seems to be, at the moment, "the triumph of secularism". You could call it that. Atheism is an extreme form of secularism, and these guys were standing out there and they just kind of threw all caution to the wind. They're all Darwinist. Every time you open a book you immediately get involved with Darwin. Darwin is the Operating System of the Anglo American Empire, there's no question about it. If you go to Harvard (as my son did) and you want to get into "the club", like the Porcellian Club, you better tell them you believe in Darwin because otherwise you're not going to make it. And if you make it in that club then you become a Rhodes Scholar. Well, Rhodes Scholar, that's for Cecil Rhodes who was the Empire Builder. He was, you know, spreading the theology. The philosophical underpinning of all this is Darwin, and that's precisely what you realize when you read Richard Dawkins book or Christopher Hitchens book. It's all Darwinism, and Darwinism is in a sense anti-metaphysics.
So what I think happened here, in what Hegel would call the "Cunning of Reason", is this outburst of Atheism backfired, and in a sense it brought about the collapse of the whole paradigm that's upholding the Anglo American Empire. So suddenly you look at the Anglo American Empire and guess what? It's Turtles all the way down for the Anglo American Empire as well! And that's what these books made obvious, for - I think - the final time. They ripped the veil off. They said, this is what we really believe. This is what it's all about. And in doing that they overturned their own ideology.
The only philosopher among the group, Dennett, makes this incredibly stupid statement: "the universe created itself Ex Nihilo", and then to give the full statement says: "...or out of something very small." This is ridiculous! It's completely ridiculous! Here I am waving, I'm raising my hand in the front row. Professor Dennett, if it's something very small - even if it's really, really small - it's still something, isn't it? Well that means this is what you need to prove! This is a circular argument here. Okay, but let's forget he said that. Let's not embarrass him too much. Let's stick to the first part of his argument: "the universe created itself Ex Nihilo". That means the universe had to exist before it existed! Well, can you explain that to me professor Dennett? Can you explain how that's possible? No you can't, because it's impossible. You just made a colossal philosophical error. So what you have here is a group of metaphysical ignoramuses!
I get calls from Press TV, you know, usually it's like five minutes. Okay five minutes. We're going to talk about Yemen. So let's say professor Jones comes on and says,"The problem with Yemen is it is surrounded by Brazil and Argentina". Well, in a minute they've laughed me out of the place! Right. Well, this is the equivalent of what these people are saying. Dennett thinks that Yemen is in South America! He doesn't even know what he's talking about! You can't do metaphysics with biology! You can't do it. It's impossible. Yet that's exactly what all these people try to do. They try to turn biology into metaphysics. It can't work. Sir Isaac Newton was a little bit smarter than these guys because he tried to use physics, turning physics into metaphysics. That's not going to work either, okay, but at least it's more sophisticated than what these guys do. Biology is not going to work. You can't create a metaphysical argument out of biology, and that's precisely what they try to do.
So there's this Atheist talk show host and Dawkins, and they're just insufferably pompous and smug. This poor guy from Scotland calls up and starts talking about how Jesus entered his life and saved him and you can tell they're rolling their eyes when this guy's talking. And then the guy suddenly turns the tables on Dawkins when he says, "Well Richard, was there always something? Was there ever nothing?" And Dawkins didn't know what to say. "Well, yes", he said. "Well if there's ever nothing, then there can't be something!" And Dawkins doesn't know what to say. He's completely dumbfounded by an obvious statement like this. Yes, obviously nothing can come from nothing. If there were ever nothing, no there can't be something. So then he says, "You need to read a book!" Okay I guess that's a good answer, isn't it? And then on top of that, he makes it even worse when he says, "I wrote eight books!" Well, congratulations. You wrote eight books. Well God bless you Richard. But you didn't answer the question. This is a question you cannot answer. You simply cannot answer it because you can't get around the fact that there is this move from nothing to something which you can't negotiate. There's no intermediate stage between nothing and something! I'm sorry, professor Dennett, even if it's really, really small, it's still something.
Now the interesting thing is when you start to get into these biological arguments, the evolution arguments, the same applies. Either an organ can see or it cannot see. If it can see, it's an eye. If it can't, it's not an eye. There's no intermediary stage. And this is precisely what they both tried to fudge here because it's the essence of Darwinism, and this is the fundamental pillar of their Atheism. The essence of Darwinism is: we got a lot of time now. Before, everybody thought their world was 6,000 years old. Well now it's a lot older than that. It's millions of years old, and we can have little steps over a million years. I mean anything can happen, right? With little steps over the years? Well no. I'm sorry. You can't, because you can't get from blindness to sight even if you got a million steps. This is precisely their ignorance of the metaphysical argument, because it's very similar to the proof for the existence of God.
I was in India, and I was at this High School in Delhi, and there was a group of sixteen year olds. I give a little talk and then the teacher says, "any questions?" One kid (Samil) raised his hand. He says, "Can you prove the existence of God?" Now I think this is significant because I think this is precisely what India craves at this point. What has been missing in India is this type of Logos.
I went to the temple of Ganesha in Mumbai and saw the little gold statue of Ganesha. There's a silver rat. The Hindus put a wreath around the rat's neck and they whisper in the rats ear and he scurries off and carries the prayers to Krishna or somebody. You can worship monkeys. There's a monkey god Hanuman. You can worship cobras. There's probably nothing you can't worship. You probably find a temple for everything - including the guy who murdered Mahatma Gandhi! There's actually a temple dedicated him. Now if you can find the Logos in this, let me know. I don't see it. I just don't see any Logos at work worshipping monkeys, but if you don't like that, well, that's okay, because then you can leave the temple of Ganesha and you can go to the Nehru Science Center, which is real, okay? That's religion, but this is real. And so we're waiting to get in, you know it's like classic 1950's Tomorrowland, and it's the whole history of the universe right there on the mural. The beginning of the mural says "atoms formed." Yeah, I'm sorry fellas, this makes the worship of Hanuman the monkey god look rational by comparison. This is completely preposterous! What do you mean "atoms formed"? As I said before, in another instance, you mean shit happens? Is this your explanation of the universe? Is it just Turtles all the way down? This is the scientific version of Turtles all the way down.
So this this is the world that Samil lives, and that's why he asked me the question. I said, "Yes, I can prove the existence of God."
I said, "Nothing comes from nothing. There is something. Therefore there was never nothing. This something cannot bring itself into existence, because to do that, it would have to exist before it existed. That's impossible, so therefore something else had to bring that into existence, and that something is what all men call God."
That's the short version because, you know, he's 16 years old and I'm up there... and anyways he liked it. I don't know whether he's still thinking about it now, but I think it was a successful communication. Now what I didn't say is that there's the long version of this thing, which is: you could say, "Well maybe it was created by a Demiurge - maybe it wasn't God." Maybe it was a half God or something like that. Well, the same thing still applies. Did something create the Demiurge? If something created the Demiurge then the Demiurge is not God. If the Demiurge is God, well then that's the end of this story.
So let's translate this into Darwinian language. Suppose you had a whole, real long line of Demiurges? This is what Darwin is! Darwinism is: we got a lot of Demiurges, and if you have a lot of them over a long period of time then you don't need a God at the end of it! Well, sorry, that's not true. That doesn't work.
Then there's the argument about the caboose. The caboose is moving. Why is the caboose moving? Well, because it's attached to a boxcar. Okay, well, why is the boxcar moving? Well, the boxcar is attached to another boxcar. The Richard Dawkins argument is we have a lot of boxcars. A really long line of boxcars will move the caboose? Well, no. Sorry, Richard, that doesn't work. That's the kind of typical Darwin stupidity. The only reason that those boxcars are moving is because there's a locomotive on the front of the train and no matter how many boxcars you have, it can't make up for a locomotive. The locomotive has power of motion. The boxcars do not. So this is the 'Argument from Motion'. There has to be an unmoved mover, or an uncaused cause. That's the classical definition of the term we use.
I use the term of the bridge, which is from the opposite point of view. If you want to build a bridge, you have to get in the middle of the river. You sink a wooden form and then you pump the water out of the form and then you reach the bottom. That's mud, usually. And then you can't start building on mud either because mud moves. So you have to keep going down and down and down till you find something that does not move. We call it bedrock, generally. Once you find bedrock, once you find something that does not move, then you can start building the bridge. Because otherwise the bridge will collapse. Now what Dawkins and his friends are saying is: "Well, no. We don't need to go to bedrock we have a lot of bricks! We have a lot of cement! As a matter of fact, we have an infinite number of bricks and cement!". Well, I don't care if you have an infinite number bricks and cement. If you keep pouring them into that hole and you don't find bedrock it's not going to matter. I'm saying that the whole world right now is in crisis because the whole world lacks this metaphysical foundation.
Newton was an alchemist. He was the last alchemist. The crisis in English culture came about with the Reformation. The Reformation was a looting operation. I'm going to get in trouble, I know, when I say this, but there is no theological justification for the Reformation. Certainly in England. It was a looting operation in Germany and Luther wrote a lot of theological treatises and so on and so forth but it was still a looting operation over there. But in England there wasn't even a Luther! There's nobody. It's just greedy, rapacious aristocrats stealing church property. That's all it is. And maybe later some Anglican bishop sprinkled holy water on it, but that's all it ever was. As Tawney put the matter sharply, “The upstart aristocracy of the future had their teeth in the carcass, and, having tasted blood, they were not to be whipped off by a sermon.” And so the regime lost all legitimacy whatsoever. Their philosophical guy was John Dee and John Dee believed in magic. And so magic was basically the Operating System of Elizabethan England and Shakespeare. It's in Shakespeare. It's in the place at the time. Marlowe wrote Doctor Faustus. Doctor Faustus is John Dee. Prospero is John Dee. The difference between Dr. Faustus and Prospero is: Prospero says, okay I'm getting out of the magic business and closes his books. It's like, no you don't get out of the CIA or the Mafia, okay? And so the realistic version is Marlowe at the end of Faustus, being dragged into hell shouting "Oh Christ! Oh Christ!", then the demons drag him down to Hell. That's a more realistic version.
So this was the crisis of Elizabethan England. This didn't give him legitimacy, you know, it was a nice fantasy but there's no legitimacy here, and then the whole regime collapses when Mersenne just demolishes Fludd in an exchange of letters. And then Descartes becomes the philosopher of the new age of the modern era, and the English remain sort of behind the times until Isaac Newton arrives. Now, Isaac Newton was an alchemist just like John Dee. No difference. He, and the other paradigm of the English enlightenment John Locke, engaged in alchemical experiments in his apartment in Cambridge, trying to turn lead into gold or something like that. So much for your rationalism, folks. But Newton - it's like classic English ideology - used physics and the inverse square law and this type of stuff (which is true) to smuggle in a Pagan cosmology. The Pagan cosmology is basically from Empedocles and it's that the universe is made up of Love and Strife, except that Newton called it Gravity and Inertia. Gravity and Inertia are Love and Strife. This creates perfect circular motion which means you don't mess with the universe.
Now this comes out most clearly when you apply this to economics, which is what Adam Smith did. He called it self-interest in competition. The universe is perfect, so you never interfere with the system, which is something the oligarchs love to hear. Don't mess with my system of making money hand over fist! Don't talk to me about anything else. Just Llaissez Faire, leave it alone and that eventually comes down to Darwinism. Darwinism is also fundamentally a use of some form of science to rationalize the status quo, in this case the fact that the ruling class is the ruling class. They ascended to this by biological determinism, so how can you argue with these people? This is the argument of Darwinism. It's, you know, survival of the fittest, which is (if there were ever a circular argument it's survival of the fittest!) "Don't send grain to Ireland because this violates some type of law". That's what it comes down to.
Of course the full title of Darwin's book is: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
The great comeback of Logos began with Kant's Synthetic A Priori and continued up till 1831 which was the year in which Hegel and Goethe died. Logos then recedes into the background, and a new ugly form of materialism takes over European thought, and the classic example would be Karl Marx. But also this scientism, and also basically what we're talking about is racism - let's be honest here. Darwinism is racism. We had a period at the end of the 19th century of large amounts of anthropological research, archaeological research of really first-rate significance. Schliemann excavating what he thought was Troy, discovering all of this Mycenaean civilization and so on and so forth. Something happening across the world. Wilhelm Schmidt, the Catholic Divine Word priest doing the grammars of Asia and beginning serious anthropological research in these cultures that were still primitive (while the primitive cultures still existed, you know now they all have cell phones, but back then it was something worth listening to) and unfortunately it all got sidetracked by this materialism.
Wilhelm Schmidt wrote a book, a huge book (it just warms my heart to see someone writing a book that's about six times bigger than the books I write) and it was about the source of the idea of God. And it's about all of this research he was doing, anthropological research in various cultures, and what he discovered was that basically the more primitive the culture the more Monotheistic it was! Polytheism is a later form of decadence, and India is probably the classic example of that kind of decadence. But he said that invariably anthropological research was wrecked by Darwinism, because Darwinism is the exact opposite paradigm. In other words there's always progress with Darwinism, and the evidence that Schmidt found throughout the world is that decadence is the rule. It's not progress, its decadence! The more primitive people all had a belief in Monotheism and a heavily moral understanding of the universe and it all got displaced by decadence. In other words the theological term for decadence is Polytheism.
The Whig party took over the Masonic lodges in 1721 and weaponized them. How they weaponized them was basically Desaguliers, this Huguenot who was basically Newton's assistant. Newton was the Godfather (I mean, he didn't believe in anything, why he did he make him Godfather?) but anyway he was Desaguliers's child's Godfather. Desaguliers was the man who brought Newtonian physics into the Masonic Lodges. Then the Masonic Lodges got spread on the continent and they became the agents of subversion. That eventually led to the French Revolution and the Fall of the House of Bourbon. So it was always a weaponized ideology from the beginning and and I'm saying that's what it is today. That's why I think we have a crisis now because it doesn't work! I'm sorry, they still teach it in schools. My late Jewish friend Sam Shapiro used to berate me because I was so dumb that I didn't believe in Darwinism. He said he said all the people in the Notre Dame biology department believe in Darwinism. I said, well like everybody in the biology department of the Soviet Union believes in Lysenko, but that doesn't make it right. My favorite Sam Shapiro anecdote is that I'm out of town and my oldest son's father-in-law Yuri, the Russian biologist, is visiting. And I'm not there so Sam kind of just walks into my house and plunks himself down on the sofa in the living room. Then he says to Yuri, "Who are you?" Yuri says, "I'm Adam's father-in-law". He says, "Well, what do you do for a living?" He says, "I'm a biologist". At this point Sam says, "Do you know that Adam's father doesn't believe in evolution?" Yuri says, "I don't believe in it either". And I wasn't there to see the look on Sam's face.
Yes, it's an article of faith but it's over. I'm saying it's over. It doesn't work. If I said something wrong, if there's something irrational about what I said, please, PLEASE point it out to me, okay? Because I'd like to know myself. Now if what I said is true then certain consequences follow. The consequences are: for example, if you're an Atheist you're irrational. Okay now you can be irrational because the will is free, that's the way God created us, but if this is the case we have to shift the terms of the discussion from ontology or cosmology to psychology, because what we really need to talk about is your problem. You've got a problem. You've got psychological hangups. This is the only way we can explain irrationality, right? If it's irrational then we have to find some type of psychological cause, and it turns out that there are people who have done this, okay and I was in many ways instrumental in this as well.
I'm talking about Paul Vitz's book "Faith of the Fatherless". Paul Vitz is a psychologist at NYU, he's probably retired now, but back in the 80's we published in Fidelity Magazine, which was the forerunner of Culture Wars, we published an article where he floated this idea. The idea is basically if you look at all of the famous Atheists in history they have one thing in common. Namely, father problems. They have problems with their fathers and this is significant because obviously God and father are related. And there's no one who said this better than Sigmund Freud, who was like the classic example of the Atheist with a father problem, because he said God is an exalted father. Well, he's right. He's right, not in the way he thinks he's right, because he thought that that he just exploded all of Theism, no. No, from a psychological point of view he's right, because we get our idea of God from our fathers. And if our fathers are weak or undependable or in some sense inadequate we have trouble believing that there is a God.
So Freud did come up with a good explanation of why people want to kill God. Well, because you want to sleep with your mother, right? Well that's obvious! Well, Sigmund Freud said so, it must be true. Yeah, but I mean basically that mystery has been cleared up as well. Because Freud said "with your mother or your sister" and it turns out that he had this sexual obsession with his sister-in-law and he actually did consummate that relationship. In "Moses and Monotheism" he talked about this as a kind of divine thing, because the Pharaoh was known as a god and because he was God he can only marry people within his own family. But Freud got it from Nietzsche. It's in The Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche got it from Barruel.
Nietzsche was part of this whole revolutionary movement which began with the Illuminati and the Illuminati was that organization founded by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria at the end of the 18th century. They had a system of control which they called "Zahlen Analisa" and if you translate that into Greek it's called "Psycho Analysis". Well, this is where Freud got the idea of Psychoanalysis. It was from the Illuminati and the Illuminati program was basically the whole Jesuit idea of examination of conscience turned upside down. So if you're a Jesuit, you go to the priest and you examine your conscience. You come up with your sins, the priest gives you absolution and he says, "Go and sin no more". The psychiatrist on the other hand, because he's part of the Illuminati, uses this as a form of control. So you go to this psychiatrist, you tell him your sins and he says "It's okay if you want to do that if you make a big contribution to the Psychoanalytic Society", which is exactly what Sigmund Freud did with Horace Frink the American psychologist, a medical doctor.
There's a chapter in Vitz's book on Nietzsche. There's a crucial stage in development where you disconnect from your mother and you identify with your father. Your mother is unconditional love, your father is the reality principle. In other words, your father helps you negotiate with the world. How to get along in the world. He is the principle of order, just as God is the principle of order. The father represents Logos, just as God represents Logos. Nietzsche's father was an evangelical Protestant minister and he died when Nietzsche I think was around 5 years old. Crucial moment. Nietzsche loved his father and then suddenly he feels abandoned by his father and he feels because of that that God is not reliable or there's this anger. In Nietzsche it's more than just a sorrow, it's anger. Like "Why did my father leave me? I had to be raised by all these women! I hate women!" Nietzsche was a misogynist. He almost found a father in Richard Wagner. Nietzsche absolutely idolized Wagner and then Wagner wrote Parsifal and that was the end of Nietzsche's relationship with him, because Nietzsche felt that Wagner had capitulated and bowed down before God.
There is this this anger, okay, this rage against God and you find that also in these people. Professor Vitz did a new edition of Faith of the Fatherless where he dealt with the New Atheists and he mentions Dawkins. Dawkins went to a an Anglican boarding school and was sexually molested by an Anglican priest and so therefore you can see the anger that he would feel by transposing this to religion. And then there's Christopher Hitchens. This is an interesting case because Christopher Hitchens has a brother Peter Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is a Conservative. And they both had the same father. Now Peter Hitchens talks about his father as the naval hero. He was in the British Navy. The British Navy is an important institution in England, growing up in England. Peter Hitchens talks about this in his book The Abolition of Britain. Every schoolboy learns about what a great guy Sir Francis Drake was. We would call him a pirate and a terrorist, but the English, you know, they they have a funny way about that. It's in the Pirates of Penzance. Basically, if you steal a spoon in England they'll hang you but if you steal a country, you steal all the church property, or you steal all the gold in the Spanish Armada they make you a knight. So the message is Think Big. Be bold and steal a lot and you'll become a knight in England. So his father's a part of that operation, you know, descendant of Sir Francis Drake, and they sink the German Navy in one huge battle, and that's the father that Peter Hitchens sees. Well, after the war the British couldn't afford their Navy anymore so the Hitchens tare got downsized, and this is in a sense the father the Christopher sees. So it's one and the same guy but in two different phases in his life. One guy is the courageous warrior, the other guy's kind of like an accountant, you know, who's trying to skimp by because he got kicked out of the Navy. Now what's the difference here, and I think this is what I would raise as my counter example to Vitz. It's necessary but it's not sufficient, this fatherless thing. The crucial thing, I think, is moral behavior. Peter Hitchens is open about his early life. He's no saint, but he's repentant.
So basically they both got swept away by the sexual revolution, but Peter repented and Christopher did not. Christopher went on to dump his wife and ran off with some Jewish chick who made his career form and eventually became a Jew. He discovered that (his mother commits suicide after she runs off with a lover) there's Jewish blood, and then he says "This is why I've always been a revolutionary, I have Jewish blood in my veins". This is basically Hitler's view of race! And this is what Hitchens now believes! It's ridiculous! But anyways this I think is a crucial issue, because what you see here is once you are committed to, you know; you've got this weakness... It's very similar to homosexuality. Homosexuality is also father deprivation. That's the only real plausible explanation of homosexuality. There is no "gay gene" out there, sorry. But what these people have in common is they are not affirmed by their fathers in some sense. They feel some type of lack and the crucial thing that happens with a homosexual, they have this tendency, it's not either moral or immoral, it's simply a flaw that you have. It's like you grew up missing an arm or something like that. It's a psychological flaw, but it can get sexualized. And this is where the predatory older homosexual comes in. They have, and I don't know whether this is part of "gaydar" or not, but they sense that in these young guys. Sandusky, the coach at Penn State who went to jail. He nearly destroyed Penn State. Sandusky used the psychology department at Penn State to find vulnerable young guys, shows you how vicious this guy was, but that's what happens is this can get sexualized. These vulnerable kids can get sexualized, and then they get habituated to a very bad habit and at this point you can see the rage starting to grow.
I don't know whether you saw that recent video of the homosexual in Seattle. This is homosexual rage. Basically, pro-lifers are coming in from the cold after handing out leaflets and the homosexual barges in and says "Get out of here, I hate you", you know, and then what's going on here? You're gonna get rid of customers? What kind of business is this? What you have here is this rage and at anything that reminds him of what he is. Because he's in rebellion against Logos, and that's what adds fuel to this fire. Because he knows that there is a Logos to the human body. He knows that sexuality has a Logos, there is a teleology that that directs it toward procreation. And he knows that every time he engages in sexual activity he deliberately thwarts that intention. And whenever you remind him of that fact he's filled with rage and wants to kill you or kick you out of his club!
Why suddenly did we have the new atheism? Well, it's a logical sequel to the sexual revolution. Which is, in a nutshell, fathers shirking responsibility for their offspring. That's basically what the sexual revolution is all about. You know, the Playboy philosophy. You name it, that's what it comes down to, the basic thing. And so you have children raised in the fatherless environment and so therefore they can't conceive of God because the only image they have of God is their father and that's not adequate. That's inadequate. It's too weak. If God is weak then he's not God. And I think that explains the New Atheism. I think that's the best explanation of it.
The oligarchs wanted to be liberated from morality because morality is a check on their power. So be careful what you pray for! You get liberated from morality, and then everybody gets liberated from morality, and now you've got England as it is today - which is a mess. Probably it's going to be taken over by Muslims because you wrecked it. "You" being the oligarch ruling class, the Rhodes Scholar boys, you know, the Darwinians. You wrecked it, because you drove out moral causality and once you do that everything collapses. And that's what we're seeing right now.
What we can do now is expose the failure of their ideology. Here we get into something that is extremely mysterious from my point of view, because it is a fact that if one man has an idea it seems to spread all over the place. They can have all of the universities under their control and all the TV stations, and yet the idea spreads, and ultimately it's not going to work. It's similar to what I said about the bricks. You can have an infinite number of bricks but if they're all false it's not gonna hold up anything. And I think that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing that collapse across the board of the conventional narrative and Trump's election was an example. Trump is a disaster. His attack on the nuclear agreement with Iran is only the latest instance of his folly, but it was a protest against the oligarchs' rule. And it was an expression that the conventional narrative does not hold anymore. I'm going to say the same thing about how Harvey Weinstein, okay? The Hollywood conventional narrative is imploding as we speak as well, and I think that basically Harvey Weinstein was offered up as a scapegoat by Steven Spielberg. Steven Spielberg's ancestors are the ones who said, "It is better for one man to die than for the people to perish". So I think it's better for Harvey Weinstein to get knocked off for sexual harassment than for all of Hollywood to go crashing down around him. I think that's what we're seeing now, but that's another story.