What's up with Jay Dyer?

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This guy attacks Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin as plagiarists, specifically that they took the material from his Sept. 7 podcast for Joe's Sept. 22 article that was posted here, and their Unspun podcast from Dec. 3 on the same topic. The blast is here:

http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/12/10/on-jan-irvin-joe-atwill-the-flawed-methodology/

Dyer's accusation is unjustified. "The Tempest" analysis was originally posted here on Oct. 20, 2014, and both Atwill and Irvin have been discussing Brave New World and Huxley since 2013.

In the thread, Dyer makes the bizarre claim that Atwill has been promoting Bart Ehrman. Joe confronted Dyer about that, and Dyer went off into a strange digression about higher criticism, Borg, Pagels and Spong.

When I tried to further discuss the plagiarism issue with Dyer, he edited his earlier materials to make my responses look incorrect, and then as I continued to try to corner him into a position, he closed the discussion.

Most fundamentally, Dyer's objection to Atwill and Irvin seems to be that their work is based in "empirically-based materialism." Thus, he believes, they are somehow perpetuating the perversion of this philosophy promulgated by Bentham and the like. But, I'm not sure what philosophical position he is offering up as the core of his viewpoint, in opposition to empirically based science.

A lot of Dyer's analysis seems to be very good, but his logo prominently features the mystical eye of horus. Does anybody know what's going on here?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a post that makes Dyer's philosophical basis pretty clear. He quotes approvingly from Justin Martyr, and puts his faith in One True God, and in a Personal God. Sounds like hard-core Christianity to me. No wonder he's not a big fan of Joe's work.

This is also the only substantial discussion about Aldous Huxley at Dyer's blog prior to his Sept. 7 podcast. If anyone is a johnny-come-lately to Huxley studies, it would be Jay Dyer.

http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/07/11/justin-martyr-huxley-and-the-perennial-philosophy/

Quote:

Thus, the perennial philosophy as it is so-called is hard to decipher and hard to pin down, but the point I have been making above cancels out the blasphemies and attacks on God that are common in liberal circles, as well as modern new world order proponents like Aldous Huxley, who in his The Perennial Philosophy seeks to destroy the notion of a single Personal God, and thereby destroy the notion of personhood. Once the notion of personhood is gone as a metaphysical doctrine, it can be granted (and removed) at will via the apotheosized world-state. Yes, literally, by the pantheistic future world government. Huxley is quite candid about this, too. But all such attempts at deification of the state and destroying the biblical tradition are doomed to fail.

And so if there is in some sense a “perennial philosophy,” it is the perennial philosophy of the One True God, and not a pagan truth of generic, a-personal monotheism whereupon we can later attach the conception of a Personal deity, after we have borrowed bad arguments from Aristotle. We must begin with the Personal God who guides history by His providence. Only in this metaphysic do we have a grounded notion of person and protect the rights of the individual from the superstate-play-acting-as-God. We must then toss out the ‘traditionalists’ school of Coomaraswamy, Huxley and others, which really comes from Hinduism and is the sludge of the occult tradition passed down through the ages. The true perennial philosophy, then, as Justin points out (whether consistently or not) is the perennial philosophy of “Eyeh asher Eyeh.”​
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
More specifically, at least as of 2012, Jay Dyer was Eastern Orthodox:

http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-road-to-alexandria-responding-to-jay.html

Dyer is quoted as saying:

Such being the case, I affirm that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is the true form of Apostolic, Biblical Christianity, and that not only the Reformed Baptists, but all Protestant denominations, though having generally valid baptisms that impart grace, are, in the final analysis, heretical and severely deficient in their peculiar doctrinal distinctives.​
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Furthermore, Dyer seems to be a monarchist. I can't find anywhere he comes right out and says it, but here in this article, deep in the fine print, he laments that he is almost alone as such:

http://jaysanalysis.com/2013/01/09/apocalypticism-republiconmunism-and-race-specific-bio-weapons/

Quote:

Conservative is monarchy, for heaven’s sake, while “republics” and “republican” government are Enlightenment liberalism, Illunimism and Plato’s statism. Anyone with any sense and education should know this, but you’ll never hear any of this on any “conservative” blog that’s out there, of any repute (that I’m aware of), although I’ve actually heard Glenn Beck and Alex Jones mention this in passing. And they mention it because they think those of you that are “awake” are just as stupid as the steeple.​

And here, he reposts (without comment, seemingly approvingly?) an essay by Martin Kalinyuk calling for monarchy under Eastern Orthodox principles. Kalinyuk's hero, Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852), was an Eastern Orthodox champion of monarchy, who criticized Marxism from that standpoint.

http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/07/25/gogol-sacral-monarchy/

Quote:

“The Rule of many is not good. Let there be one ruler,
One king.”


Iliad, book II, 203-204

It is possible that there is a further level of national unity, an avenue to which is opened by Holy Orthodoxy.

As Konstantin Malofeev, founder of Tsargrad TV and Chairman of the St Basil the Great Charitable Foundation, noted in a recent interview “Today, 5% of the population go to church on Sunday. When this will be 30% or even 50% then the question of monarchy will appear on its own.”

It is only natural to suppose, all things being equal, that people won’t learn less and so know no better—we can confidently grant that attendance at the Divine Services will rise. The day will come when the question will be asked.

Monarchy is not just one political system among others according to the mind of the Church. It is the natural and supernatural order of things.​
 

Mark

Member
A lot of Dyer's analysis seems to be very good, but his logo prominently features the mystical eye of horus. Does anybody know what's going on here?

That is a good point, and it is so prevalent. If people that use it are trying to hide something they should use a subtler method because after CBS that Eye is kind of blatant.

I don't know exactly what the argument is over but it seems strange he would delete that material especially when Jerry is such a nice guy and so willing to discuss things. Someone should ask him to restore the posts and calmly complete the discussion. It is okay if we don't all see identically; and they will both learn from continuing as will anyone reading it.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Mark,

It wasn't my material that got deleted, it was Jan's material that got deleted from Jay's Facebook thread. Jan wasn't really all that nice.

At this link -- http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/12/10/on-jan-irvin-joe-atwill-the-flawed-methodology/ -- Jay is claiming that Joe's Sept. 22 article and the Unspun 005 podcast were stolen directly from his Sept. 7 podcast. You should be able to see Jay's article and 59 comments, including 4 from Joe and 4 from me. After responding to my last posts, he ended the conversation.

Actually I don't believe there was anything at all original in Jay's discussion of Shakespeare's Tempest in his podcast, he was giving information that has been well known by many authors for years. I further explained to him that Joe's article originally appeared Oct. 20 and contained a very different viewpoint from his podcast, and that Joe had been working on Shakespeare since at least 2008. When he cut me off, I was about to add that Irvin had been working on Huxley and Brave New World for several years.

And since then, Craig Bickford pointed out (at Jan's FB page) that Joe and I had also done a podcast on Tempest and BNW, which had appeared coincidentally on Sept. 7, exactly the same day as Jay's. So that should conclusively put an end to the plagiarism question.

Comments are still open at this other thread where Jay is talking about this same problem, here:

http://jaysanalysis.com/2014/04/28/jaysanalysis-interviews-jan-irvin-of-gnostic-media/

If anybody wants to go over and continue the discussion, good luck. Rather than spend the last of my goodwill over there now, I'm saving it for a discussion of Godel's theorem, and why you can't use it to prove that the world needs an Eastern Orthodox monarchy.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
Now his fetish for Bond films and Bond girls is a little clearer- As a monarchist, perhaps he sees himself as an intellectual assassin for Queen and country-
 

ousia

Member
I have previously challenged Jay to a debate on his nonsense claims about the philosophical foundations of empiricism. He declined smuggly and then later pretty much reworded some of my comments in another blog post. Jan didn't do as well as could have been done in his discussion with Jay on youtube. I would have eaten Jays lunch!

I should add that Jay was very polite and patient with Jan during that discussion despite their communication barriers.
 
I too like to read Jay's reviews, but his underlying philosophy seems to be Plato as a pro-genitor of Christianity. See his discussion of Plato.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I too like to read Jay's reviews, but his underlying philosophy seems to be Plato as a pro-genitor of Christianity
I don't know Jay from Adam, but just who in your opinion was the progenitor of Christianity? What exactly to you mean by progenitor? The Intellectual vector, or the functional creators?

ousia explicitly admitted here that he doesn't know crap about philosophy, only that he is a perky parrot of Ayn Rand (the monarchist's Trojan Horse of Mont Pelerin), and thus a wannabe magnate to lord over the 'lazy people' (the lower Platonic castes). He hasn't been seen here since, so I suspect that he has been spending the time in boning up on such as Aristotle and his 'God' (same as Plato's 'God'). Aristotle, that mentor of Alexander the Great.

Would you consider Alexander the Great to be an Internationalist Elite or a hero of White or any other flavor of Nationalism? What about Julius Caesar and the Prince of Peace, the Son of God, Augustus?

Without their fine efforts we would not have the USA right? And the glorious Republic, now run by Roman Catholics -- unless you consider the Jesuits to be Jews, or unless you consider the last point to be distinction without a difference? After all, the end of the New Testament (Rev 7 and 14) admits that the Hebrews (the already by then supposedly 'Lost Tribes'), including the Jews, get to play Chosen patty cake with 'God' and the Elders, while all the goyim stand further back and sing hymns all night and day. OK, so that the Hebrews and Jews only include male virgins. What does this say to you?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Since your silence on this appears to be that you sullenly agree with my undeniable facts and interpretation, would you agree that you are functionally a Zionist and a globalist (same thing), in distinct contrast to your rhetoric? The only question then, would be if you are witting or unwitting in what you are doing. The latter case is why Jesus was made to say, "Forgive them Father, for they (the Useful Idiots) know not what they do." Indeed.

Please don't take this as an insult, as I was once in a muddle over all these issues too. That is the whole point of the Western cultural construct, as exemplified by the Romantic rhetoric that you state on this forum. It is Romantic because it appeals to your vanity need to Feel superior and has precious little fact, if any.

If you read the material that Jerry and I have presented at Posflaviana, with an open mind, then you will get the context that you need to understand how incoherent that you (and others like ousia) are presently. I'll bet it was the 'prophet' Jesus that told Muslims that "context was everything". Sly bastard.

If the central cultural document of your vaunted Western Civilization has a coherent subtext of global domination (as did the pagan Romans'), then should it surprise you that you are actually a Zionist preaching the wonders of Western Civilization. And that you think you might possibly be a 'Gentile'? Last I heard millers only ground wheat and dutifully paid their tithes to their gentil liege lords. My you have come a long way, baby.

No, you've been under a generational delusion, forgetting where and what you came from, as did the radical nationalist Zealots in their synthetic society. At the planned time, the Internationalist Elite Romans and their Jewish cousins ground them into the dust and spread them via the Winds of Moriah (Oklahoma!!!, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain ..). And now you're playing the same game? Just higher stakes this time.

The pioneers were indeed deliriously happy to be told by their God's agents that "this land is your land" (and not the bastard, heathen natives). But not being deep thinkers did they realize that their descendants are to get the same fate as the 'lesser' Israelites. Their God's plan does NOT say that it will stop with the glorious Republic of America, but that they will repeat the same plan that worked before. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

If you want to stay on the same train, don't worry the glorious bloodshed you desire will come. I don't know how old you are, but it will come. I'm guessing that the playbook is set for 2066 or 2067.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Since your silence on this appears to be that you sullenly agree with my undeniable facts and interpretation
But Richard, it might also mean he's decided that there's no point arguing with you. Or, that he just hasn't been on line again, or hasn't had time to prepare a response.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
That's why I used the qualifier 'appears to be', so that he could correct me. I saw that he made a subsequent post on another thread after I had made my first comment here.

ousia is still preparing his response. :(
 

seankehoe

New Member
I am curious if either Richard or Jerry feels this question is out of place in this thread-
Are either of you aware of the work of Ralph Ellis and or Ahmed Osman?
The reason being the origins of the word and place of Zion. The possible point being labeling certain people as "Zionist". What I am looking into is this being a possibly co opted term (to control the narrative) that predates when Jerusalem was called Zion and going back further into Egypt, which if correct would/could nullify the co opted term with an earlier and more primary source.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Sean, welcome to our site.

It just so happens we had Ralph Ellis as a guest on our podcast for the last two weeks. I know that he thinks the original headquarters of the Hebrew Patriarchs aka Hyksos Pharaohs was in lower Egypt -- at Tanis and Amarna. I suppose that would make one or both of those cities the 'original Zion' though I don't recall Ralph saying so in such explicit terms. He also says that the 'Mt. Sinai' of Exodus was in fact the great pyramid of Giza. All of this is intriguing, though I'm not sure such hypotheses can ever be proven as factual after so much passage of time, and so much priestly obfuscation.

Ralph Ellis threads --

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/sept-22-talk-about-ralph-ellis.2158/

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/oct-6-special-guest-ralph-ellis-about-king-izas-jesus-manu-of-edessa.2169/

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/fri-oct-13-ralph-ellis-returns-ice-ages-and-climate-change-freemasonry.2171/
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I am curious if either Richard or Jerry feels this question is out of place in this thread-
Hi Sean,

Yes there are some more appropriate threads, such as: http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/the-egyptian-roots-of-freemasonry-the-inner-cult-of-the-kings.2058/

Maybe Jerry can move all this to one of them.

In the above thread I perhaps get distracted into a digression about the OT Judges. This based upon some commentary in Flavio Barbiero's book, The Secret Society of Moses, which posits an elite Egyptian origin. There are several others where I discuss alternate origins for Judaism and Zionism than the orthodox position, mostly involving the Egyptian 18th dynasty (which had outside genetic influences from such as the Mittani).

And in my OT analysis series on our blog, I gradually develop the position that the entire construct of the tribe of Judah is synthetic, starting with patriarch Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, in order to start the tribe. She had to trick him into his thinking that she was a prostitute. And the dark treatment of the members of Judah (by their own account) is relatively consistent throughout the OT, and then beginning with Judas in the NT, the Jews are treated as necessary evils by the Catholic Church -- in all of its central theology (until recent decades that is).

Jerry and I are also familiar with the work of Ahmed Osman.

Here I discuss the Sabbah brother's great book, Secret's of the Exodus: http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/el-shaddais-setis-conquest.1845/ and here: http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/ramesses-i-as-moses.1907/ The Sabbah brothers (French rabbis) trace an exclusive order of Egyptian priests, the Yahud, to being closely tied to Amenhotep III, Akhenaton's father.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Charles Galton Darwin, the author of "The Next Million Years," was a physicist and eugenicist and the grandson of Charles Darwin. Published in 1952, Mr. Darwin's book is amazingly prescient about what the next fifty years would bring: energy shortage (oil), food shortage, and the "pressures" of overpopulation. While the author speculates what the remedies can or might be implemented for resolution of these problems, Mr. Darwin is primarily interested in the essential problem - Man -- and how his essential problematic human nature can be perfected from the wild animal that he is to one that is controlled and perfected so as to reach his or her maximum effectiveness in a world of limited resources. Thus, it is not until Chapter VIII of this 11-chaptered work that the general dullness and mechanical verbal probity of the rhetoric disappears and the reader is palpably confronted with a horrifying but superficially scientific creed which asserts that inheritable wealth comes from the inherited ability of successful and wealthy families, and that because these wealthy familes, generation after generation, have proven themselves "successful" because of their consistent "success" through time, they, therefore, must be of superior intelligence and ability over the rest of mankind, and, concomitantly, these families, and the individual members of these families, alone are fit to be the elite and to rule over and control the rest of the human race.

Charles Galton Darwin foresees a future in which human beings are farmed and bred like animal stock (page 184), each to a specialized purpose (including the use of drugs and artificial use of hormones to remove the sexual desire out of "inferior" human beings), completeley controlled by the so-called successful elite. In this new creed, it will be necessary to revise the old doctrine of the sanctity of the individual human life as well and to create policies that would allow the very unlucky in life (including babies) not to survive and not selfishly waste limited, precious, natural resources needed by the functional upper classes.

The author concludes, presciently as well, that China will be the civilization emblematic of the future the elite are planning as it not only has endured for century after century, longer than the Roman Empire, but the very way of life in China, socially crowded and politically cowed, is a good paradigm for what the future of the entire world shall broadly look like in the 21st century with its provinces, dynasties, and collectivism spearheaded under one central head or world government owned and run by future descendants of the Darwin family and other "successful" familes in addition.



Book nmy in PDF
http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/The_Next_Million_Years__how_to_kill_off_excess_population___1953_.pdf
Amazon books
https://www.amazon.com/Million-Years-Charles-Galton-Darwin/dp/0837168767
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Charles Galton Darwin foresees a future in which human beings are farmed and bred like animal stock (page 184), each to a specialized purpose (including the use of drugs and artificial use of hormones to remove the sexual desire out of "inferior" human beings), completeley controlled by the so-called successful elite.
Doesn't this remind you of the aristocratic feudalism brought to Europe by Roman Christendom? "The more things change, the more they stay the same"?

Coming with "the old doctrine of the sanctity of the individual human life" is also the Biblical concept of breeding humans like rabbits as an ideal, probably more motivate by a need to help the "tribe" survive in mortal competition with the neighbors, most all of whom are 'evil' ... because they generally want to do the same thing.

Archaeology has shown that the period of the OT (and before and after) the various peoples of the wider region were driven into repeated mass migrations, back and forth, by recurring feasts and famines coming from weather cycles with roughly 7 year peaks and valleys. This is the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh in Genesis, where the two colluded to enslave all of Egypt and took all the peoples' land and wealth. Then the Egyptians became feudal slaves paying Pharaoh 20% of their production every year. This was not respectively from off of their old lands, because Joseph forced them all to move elsewhere.

But at least the same book gives us the concept of: "the old doctrine of the sanctity of the individual human life."

As I posted some time ago, the data shows that most human couples naturally begin to produce an average of two children, when they no longer feel the economic need to produce a herd, because of mortality issues driven from poverty. They can then invest more in the future success of their fewer children.

Ironically, Trump and his establishment Republicans are trying to pass a tax reform that will eliminate the Inheritance Tax, a tax that relatively few are subject to, and Trump is expected to profit by about $1 billion dollars. Trump Change. It is ironic because good Catholic boys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are dead set against leaving their offspring the vast majority of their wealth, inheritance taxes or not. The argument for the tax is that leaving such wealth untaxed, above the tax thresholds, helps for the formation of familial dynasties, such as Darwin (and Traditionalist Catholics -- aka feudal monarchists) is arguing for.

Of course, the smart 'big boys' get around the inheritance tax with good lawyers and accountants.
 
Top