JaysAnalysis Interviews Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media

Oxford Inner Party.

In this interview, I ask Gnostic Media’s Jan Irvin about his thoughts on a variety of issues. However, our interview morphed into a debate on issues of metaphysics which Irvin thinks I deceived him into. Listeners and readers of my material know I frequently have no problem challenging opponents to a debate, so why I would need to trap him is ridiculous. Regardless, my questions were classic philosophical questions revolving around whether foundationalist empirical epistemology is justifiable. I believe it is not, and when Irvin, who supports it, asks for examples, I gave two: Aristotle’s transcendental argument for the principle of non-contradiction and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum against Bertrand Russell. The point was to show that tabula rasa empiricism cannot be a foundation for any metaphysics, and the way that an immaterial, invariant logical or conceptual entity is “proven” or “verified” is not the same as other types of empirical objects. Listeners can judge whether I was unfair to him in the interview, especially given the fact that I let him talk most of the time. Irvin assumes that I don’t understand the trivium and logic, when the very question I ask him is the heart of logic itself.  Regardless, I don’t recommend Jan or his work.

29 Comments on JaysAnalysis Interviews Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media

  1. From my vantage point Jan considers the history of such questions, and what it reveals, to be dangerous and leads to terrible consequences. I get that point of view. When put on the spot he chose to ignore the validity of the question and put his focus on some of the terrible world views manufactured and used against the common man.

    I have followed both of you and I am friends with you. I would consider you both high strung. There is nothing wrong with that
    (the very makeup that leads one to dig deeper) but it can lead to getting supercharged and saying things you might not say otherwise. To not recommend Jan or his work is an example of this. You valued him enough to seek an interview. The interview turned into a debate and Jan was a bit under prepared. I believe given time to look things over Jan would conclude the question you raised is a valid one. I think he chose the safe route on the spot and argued for something he was more familiar with. Again, this is my take. I can’t speak for Jan so this is speculation.

    My hope is you guys can cool off and revisit the topic. I think it’s important to the community to sort things out with clearer heads.

  2. High strung dude. Has pride in his smarts. Empathize and forgive. Or don’t. One route has a better end result.

    • I’ve already offered for him to come debate or do whatever he wants. He preferred to rant in all caps and cuss me out.

      • ElrikArcadia // September 21, 2014 at 11:17 pm //

        Hilarious how Jan commits logical fallacies, such as ad hominems and circular arguments when you pointed out his tabula rasa empiricism is not true, nor does it make sense, when you goes on and on about his love for logic, and the trivium.

      • Tillypslom // January 20, 2015 at 3:15 am //

        Jan Irvin reacts the way he does because he isn’t really a scholar in any real sense of the word. Then, when he encounters a *true* wit (yourself, Jay), his entire fantasy world that he has created for himself – wherein he is a Robert Langdon-style conspiracy code cracker of ancient mysteries – crumbles. But his ego resists; he *can’t* be wrong. Therefore, by default, ahem …. *logically*, you are wrong.

        That’s when you start receiving his “scholarly” emails (in all caps) wherein he offers respectable and mature reasons of deep academic insight for believing the things he does. Usually, he has very good reasons! For instance, one reason he is correct about *everything* is that we are all so very stupid! We haven’t studied the “trivium” as intimately as he, so that alone proves him correct.
        Flawless logic.

        I personally find him to be entertaining. I hope he never changes.
        His ignorance is comedic brilliance 🙂

        #foreverjan

      • Jans emails to me were not respectable or nice. Haha

  3. *his* instead of you.

  4. Stewart Howe // January 23, 2015 at 1:36 am // Reply

    I just love both of these guys. I mean seriously, the fervor with which Jan digs his heels in and leans into expressing his understandings is inspirational. And the transcendent poise Jay displays while circling back around to take yet another angle at developing his line of reasoning is masterful. Kudos to you both. And thank you.

    Educated is not smart; smart is not wise; and wise is not savvy or enlightened. I so appreciate the degree to which Jay and Jan are, as evidenced by the instances where they extend genuine courtesy, respect and find the humor in the absurdities which abound. I can let their ego and pride stuff go.

    Again; Kudos, Bravo, and thank you.

  5. I discovered Jay only a week or so ago thru interviews he’s given on other people’s pod casts. His familiarity with Anthony Sutton, and, as I recall, Norman Dodd (maybe Norman was brought up by the interviewer -cant recall), really impressed me. Since, I’ve listed to a handful of Jay’s youtube interviews. I became excited about Jay’s deep understanding of the manipulations of western thought through NWO-advanced philosophers and their cultural Marxist hidden agendas. Jay’s speaking style and fluency with these ideas is solid gold and makes him stand out as a potent figure in the movement toward a modern awareness of the “hidden hand.” He has so much to offer!

    Then came this interview. Ugh. Prior to this, I was not familiar with Jan or Gnostic Media

    Clearly Jan is not conversational with transcendental, meta arguments of Godel, and Husserl. Neither am I.

    Jan was totally outside his depth, and perhaps he should have just said something disarming like, “hey Jay, I’m really not up on all the specifics of these arguments, so if you wanna have lunch next week, when we are not in the middle of a podcast, I’d be interested in a reading list and some mentoring. I’ll buy the first beer. At the moment, however, I am feeling put on the spot and it’s uncomfortable for me because I feel some pressure to speak with authority on the matters I believed you’ve invited me here to discuss. So I hope, in the interest of solidarity against a shared enemy, you will be generous enough with me, as a guest in ‘your house’, to give your listeners a chance to hear how the Trivium has proved a powerful tool -for me.”

    In fact, Jan did concede that he had not had much contact with academic philosophy for over five years, and needed to brush up. Why wasn’t that admission enough to move toward common ground?

    Why did Jay not demonstrate the generosity to allow his guest the dignity of speaking about HIS approach to understanding? Does Jay have a dog in this fight whose identity he would like to conceal? Does it have to do with faith and Christianity? Is Jay a Christian? Does it have to do with the “need” to prove that Husserl’s arguments trump the Trivium? Jan asked over and over that Jay provide an example. This never struck me as a challenge, rather it seemed to me that this was Jan, feeling cornered, asking for some sincere help in understanding ideas with which he did not share Jay’s fluency. Does Husserl’s christianity figure in to this? Hell, I don’t know. I’m just trying to figure out WTF I just listened to. I’m curious. Does the Godel vs Bertrand Russell have a particularly urgent value to Jay’s world view? If so, a more genuine conversation would have ensued if Jay would have simply put his cards on the table by speaking candidly about why this meta approach is so central to HIS intellectual organization -perhaps of faith. I don’t know. Maybe I’m totally off base here. Just a gut feeling.

    It seems to me that Jan has simply formed an intellectual, and perhaps emotional, bond with the Trivium as a powerful tool to discern Truth from lies. And, for Jan, the Trivium has functioned as a pragmatic, nuts and bolts approach to weeding thru nefarious bullshit. Regardless of Jan’s fluency with Jay’s meta arguments, Jan appears to be in the trenches fighting the bad guys with those tools which have served him well -in this case, the Trivium. Why can’t that be enough for a discussion on a podcast.

    I’m no philosophy Phd, and if we, as common folks, have to become that, in order to recognize weaponized thought structures, proffered by the power structure, then man is screwed beyond all hope. For most of the asleep world, just getting their heads around the Trivium might be quantum leap in the right direction.

    If there is something I’m missing here, I’m all ears. And if Jay feels that these meta approaches to knowledge and epistimology are key in stopping the beast, then, by all means, I hope he does a series of podcast lectures on that subject alone.This would be superior to dragging a potential ally through some degrading display of Jay’s academic intellectual prowess.

    I don’t know Jan from Adam, and maybe he’s a douche, but I left this interview feeling frustrated that an opportunity for advancing the agenda shared by both Jay and Jan had been exchanged for what seemed to be Jay’s desire to be the “smarter guy in the room”. …like stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

    I’ll conclude with this: it seems both Jay and Jan have dedicated their lives to fighting global conspiratorial forces. And it seems that their overlap of understanding is far greater than their areas of divergence.

    Hence, this interview and its results do not bode well for this side of the fight.

  6. Jay, I do not wish for this response to be misconstrued as an attack on the motives of Jan Irvin- and I probably shouldn’t bring this up without a solid reference to the interview I want to bring to your attention- but given the curious similarities between the foundational philosophy of Irvin and Bertrand Russel that you bring out during the debate, I’d like to bring something to your attention: I will try to find the particular interview and post it below this comment sometime in the future- but I listened to a very early interview- I believe conducted by James Corbett and Richard Grove of other members of The Tragedy and Hope Community in which Jan Irvin himself admits that he was offered 3 million dollars by a certain Government Agency-whose identity escapes me- either to cease or change the course and method of dissemination of his personal research and work online. I will try my best to search archives and locate it and I want to stress that this by no means should be misconstrued as an attack on his character but I thought it was very interesting information nonetheless to bring up.

  7. Ok it’s interview 234 – Jan Irvin, Paul Verge, and Richard Grove of The Corbett Report Interviews and to be fair, it was actually Richard Grove (an individual who I have benefitted greatly from) who claims that he and others (in the context of his collaboration with Jan Irvin and Paul Verge) were offered 3 million dollars to cease their work (so my bad, it wasn’t Jan but Richard who said it). Again to be fair, he only says “we were offered” in the context of his collaboration with Jan, instead of saying “Jan, Paul, and I” directly, so the statement was a bit ambiguous but very fascinating nonetheless. I should also mention that he definitively says that they turned the offer down. For the record, I have enjoyed some of Jan’s work- not all of it, and I am by no means am insinuating anything, other than it was interesting to me that those guys were offered such a large sum of money to cease doing the work they were doing. I think much of Jan’s work is useful, however on a personal note, there has always been some deeper part of my intuition that has told me to be wary of him. I realize that statement is not founded in logic, but I myself hold intuition and logic in equal regard, and feel that intuition itself is an indispensable tool on the journey for truthful discovery. In the end, this proves nothing, other than the fact that it is an interesting statement.

  8. Zomby Protocol // November 8, 2015 at 9:35 pm // Reply

    Hi Jay, very interesting talk, thanks. Why don’t you recommend Jan in the end if it’s not indiscreet ?

    • Because we got into it and he cussed me out.

    • And he promotes naïve empiricism.

      • Zomby Protocol // November 13, 2015 at 8:32 am //

        Hi Jay, I emailed him to try and have a conversation because his work really interested me and it appeared really clearly to me in his answer that he has major contradictions and personality issues that he avoids by hiding himself behind the Trivium method. I am disappointed by this person who is very intelligent but also much too pretentious to achieve any valuable human communication.

      • Zomby Protocol // November 13, 2015 at 8:34 am //

        And he effectively promotes the most naive empiricism I ever encountered!

  9. Reblogged this on Jay's Analysis and commented:

    Jan Irvin refuted for his retarded materialism and empiricism.

  10. And noting that this was posted days after mine as well

    http://postflaviana.org/tempest-brave-new-world/

    • Thanks for the information. I am a big fan of both your work and Jan’s and Joe Atwill’s. In my world of blogging, if I am influenced by someone else’s work, I make sure to give them credit. Looks like that didn’t happen here. It’s a credit to you, Jay, that your ideas were stolen, although it doesn’t make it any better, nor excuse it. Sorry that happened. Some people still view the internet as the Wild West, when in reality, it isn’t. Neither is bitcoin, btw. It’s controlled by JP Morgan, or otherwise known, as Chase Bank,…Jan.

  11. Jay- I think your work is excellent and the commentaries on 2001 and eyes wide shut in particular are the best in a large field. When I saw you attempted to talk to Jan Irvin, my first thought was, ” well maybe that might work…” with a somewhat doubtful feeling. I thought maybe if someone was interviewing him instead of him interviewing a guest it might work, because I find him to be unlistenable as an interviewer. I find him to have some good information but a completely insufferable personality, one that intrudes into anything he tries to know. He can never be wrong, he continually interrupts anyone he talks to, is ignorant of the difference between an interview and a conversation, keeps trying to hijack a conversation back to his own off-topic interests, and all with the air of the often rejected. Not much of a sense of humor either…Perhaps HE is the big Lebowski….I am sorry your wit confounded him, but as soon as I saw it, I thought he would be outmatched and not take it well. Cheers, and keep lending your genuine insight to the subjects you cover. And, by all means, develop those routines with the accents! Some real scholarship spiced with humor makes your work unique and funny, and makes the serious stuff easier to bear. These subjects deserve someone with a background in learning and less baggage to carry. Regards Curt

  12. I listened to a lot of his work . Examination of British eugenics and intel groups , thorough , not garbage . However , last interview with Steve McMurray ( find no fault with him ) , Jan interrupted frequently at mention of Nazis , to make claim there were no Nazis , that in point of fact they were all Jewish . Then he went on a rant about how the Huxleys and Wedgewoods etc are evil and should be hunted down until the last remaining trace of the bloodlines of said families has been scrubbed out . Within the tirade is revealed what he thinks : Evil is a genetic trait , and evil can be removed by a eugenic method . Essentially Dawinist , eugenic , and materialist . In other words , he supports the very things he rails and rants against . Materialist as he does not believe in spirits demons , will not allow anything beyond the five senses admitted as open for discussion . What part of the anatomy harbours the Evil ? A particular strand of DNA ?
    Should you have the temerity to disagree with him , get ready to meet someone as charming as Captain Bligh .
    I thought you did not do well in the debate Jay Dyer , but it was this interview , plus memory of Irvin browbeating a Christian on some show , that gave me impetus to examine Irvin .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: