On Jan Irvin, Joe Atwill: The Flawed Methodology

By: Jay Dyer

Since Jan Irvin and his website commenter buddies have decided to declare me a CIA shill, I am going to respond, which I normally do not do to this retardation.  First, the reason for this is due to a certain nobody who demanded that I interrogate Richard Grove about something on someone’s blog, as if my show was dictated by the demands of some random person.  After accusing me of doing all this for the cash green pesto (yeah, so much bling in personal blogs), this person erected a tirade on Jan’s site that I was CIA (and also a 3rd grader – 3rd grader CIA).   My reading of Jan’s site led me to a new podcast with Joe Atwill (repackager of old higher critical inventions with his new spins) where Jan and Joe discuss a good bit of material that just happens to be my material from weeks prior.   Atwill’s information is based on his September 22, 2015 article about Brave New World as related to Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

Perusing Atwill’s materials, I cannot find any previous connection along these lines and in his article he even implies it’s a new thesis for him, writing that for him it is a new connection he made: “Did Shakespeare have such an occulted meaning for the expression ‘Brave New World’, and how should we now understand the phrase?”

1 22

So, my contention here is not that Atwill never wrote on Shakespeare or talked about Huxley, but that his claim here to his new connection is something novel.  Having myself written on Renaissance era hermeticism and alchemy and Elizabethan drama years back (linked below), none of these connections were new to me, but you’ll note that in my analyses I cite sources.   Now my talk on Brave New World that discusses Ariel, its biblical meaning, Prospero, The Tempest, Bacon, the New Atlantis, and America as the magical Brave New World was posted September 7, weeks before Atwill’s September 22 posting, with the exact same analysis, but no citation or reference from Atwill.  My talk was also posted on multiple platforms, garnering thousands of views across the alt media spectrum from Icke to Rense, so it was not some hidden talk.  Furthermore, Atwill has emailed me in the past concerning an interview, so he is aware of my work. Particularly pay attention to 22:00 mins on.



Note that my talk was uploaded September 7, 2015, weeks before Atwill’s new discovery, and subsequently played for thousands here as well, still prior to Atwill’s post.  As a side note, the Tempest link at Atwill’s page is now a dead link, in case he is editing it at this time to fill in blanks, so to speak.


If Atwill has written on these matters previously I’d be glad to know and will apologize and retract my error.  Otherwise, the response from Irvin has been nothing but “CIA shill! CIA shill!” and that I have no basis for what I say because Atwill has talked Shakespeare for years.  Of course, that is not my contention.  My contention is specific and my response to Irvin calling me a CIA shill is simply to point out that Irvin is still butt hurt over losing the debate he had with me, leading to his subsequent meltdown emails cussing and ranting in a hissy fit over the fact that he didn’t understand meta-logic or why foundationalist epistemology plus materialism (which he adheres to) is nonsensical.  Jan’s coopting of medieval pedagogy as if it were him freeing it up from Roman Catholicism is laughable to anyone educated in medieval philosophy.  This is the real reason Irvin’s issues and why he will not publicy debate any of these matters again, due to not even knowing the subject matter in question (so much for “logic”) – because he was already refuted:

The irony is that for all of Atwill’s supposed critique of masonic mind control and Irvin’s anti-establishment bent, Atwill promotes the same masonic mythology one finds in writers like Kipling’s Man Who Would Be King, where naturalism and empiricism are ironically the foundations from which his flawed critiques of the biblical texts come, directly rehashed from German Higher Criticism of the 19th century in figures like Julius Wellhausen.  Those of us who have done textual studies and canonics know this material is laughable, but it’s all the more ironic when Irvin’s penchant for empirically-based materialism is the most contradictory, fallacious and establishment-promoted worldview there is.  So who is the “shill” here, given that I don’t promote the Atlanticist/UN-based worldview of higher critical Gnosticism and have written dozens of articles refuting the Royal Society-based empirical materialism Irvin loves?  If Irvin is willing to have a public debate, he can come on my show and we’ll do it. I am always willing to respond to the anti-metaphysic, flawed methodology of Enlightenment rationalism and empiricism.
For reference:

Alchemy in John Donne and Ben Johnson

Symbolic and Platonic Usage of the Mirror in Ben Johnson and George Herbert

Esoteric Elements in Spencer’s Faerie Queen

Spencer’s Use of Symbolism in the Visions of Petrarch

The Olivet Discourse and Apocalypse as A.D. 70 Destruction (textual study through Josephus)

59 Comments on On Jan Irvin, Joe Atwill: The Flawed Methodology

  1. jim o'hearn // December 10, 2015 at 1:16 am //

    Do you agree with Atwill’s contention that the new testament is a Flavian creation?

  2. His hack books are repackaged german higher criticism with his inventive spin. If you do textual studies you can spot this stuff – typical academic make-your-name type shit where you take higher criticism and invent a new “code” like JEPD or Q and then academia and the UN promote it, as is shown by Atwill’s promotion of Bart Ehrman. 100 years ago it was the rage to call the NT a neoplatonic creation. I have numerous scholarly essays from the period. Then with the globalist funded “Jesus Quest” they came up with new ones like Q (JEPD baloney for the NT), all of which are inventions of academics trying to make a name, which, if you’ve been in graduate academics, you know that’s how it works. PhD theses are about creating new spins. Trends like that come and go.

  3. Hi Jay! I’m a subscriber, and want to thank you for all you do, and put out. Great stuff.

    Until now, I had no idea you’d “crossed swords” with Jan Irvin. I certainly have.

    Yes, in the “knowledge sphere” I’m a “nobody”, so what I think really doesn’t matter. But you may find my story amusing.

    In the beginning of 2015, after I’d listened to a lot of Jan’s “Trivium Method” stuff, on a Gnosticmedia podcast he started “going off” about Marshall McLuhan.

    I’ve read a LOT of McLuhan, and many others in that vein, since I’m fascinated about how “language” influences thinking (or non-thinking!)

    I emailed Jan asking, “Is McLuhan one of the ‘bad guys’?” He replied, “Most definitely!” I couldn’t help but ask him for evidence.

    Then he started in with all of his “connections” stuff (guilt by association?), saying that Marshall was in Greenwich Village and wrote articles published in the “Voice” … and since Other “bad guys” did that, McLuhan was “evil” … just because.

    I kept pecking at him. Asked for SPECIFIC things McLu said or wrote which supported his thesis. He gave me citations, in the form of a paragraph or two.

    Well, since I have almost ALL of McLuhan’s published works on my shelves, I looked them up.

    Totally taken out of context, and artfully “explained” by Jan to fit Jan’s paranoid theses.

    When I sent him photos of the WHOLE quotes or articles, pointing out that he’d sort of “cheated” by lifting quotes from context, he got VERY ANGRY, and commenced to calling me “names”.

    At first I thought it was funny, but then realized that he was a bit crazy in some way or another. He seems to have a need to DOMINATE, and etc.

    When I noted that he was resorting to Ad Hominem against me, which is a Trivium No-No, he got FURIOUS. Very nasty guy, especially to someone who has respected some of his work, the stuff that’s based on Trivium Method at least.

    Well, I “signed out” of any further attempts to “talk reason” with him. Still listen from time to time. REALLY Enjoyed Dr. Hans Utter’s work with Jan, although I could sense that Utter was a bit impatient with Jan stepping on his ideas, heavily.

    Anyway, just a funny story to let you know “You’re not the only one who’d dealt with this shit.” It’s too bad, whatever it is that drives him to this, because he probably has a lot to offer if he’d get over this anger thing with correspondents, and in your case fellow “thinkers”.

    As for Atwill … I’ve never had any direct dealing with him.

    Be well, and know that we appreciate what you’re doing

    Roger Grigsby


    • Yes, that’s what he does – he finds a “connection” – they went to this school, were “connected to” that person, etc. No wonder he calls anyone who dare disagree with him a “shill,” we’re all a couple degrees away from Kevin Bacon lol

    • Also, the “nobody” is Tim Joynt, the loser who first called me a shill because I wouldn’t “out Grove” as he demanded.

    • Hey roger,

      Thanks for your post.
      I’ve been meaning to ask Jan the same questions. I’ve seen him and a few other toss McLuhan, Alan Watts and a couple other people into the ‘hired shills’ pile and seem to discourage people from looking into their works. He seems to have a very novice understanding and fails to supply adequate information for such bold claims. I was wondering if I could contact you in regard to a few questions pertaining to your perspective on McLuhan and some of his works? Thanks brother!

    • Well, so I’m not the only one perplexed by Jan’s eagerness to throw McLuhan under the bus. McL evidently did spend some time with Tim Leary, but that’s not quite enuf to convict the poor Canadian. McL, in his published letters, bemoans being blackballed by people he suspects of being masons (heh-heh). McL might have knocked on the door, hoping to gain entrance to the inner circles, but was rebuffed. The Powers that Be probably recognized a loose canon (McLuhanesque pun, eh?) when they saw one. McLuhan seems simultaneously to have relished and regretted his (self-imposed) status as academic outsider.

      However, to give Jan some credit on this, we should recognize McLuhan’s work as dovetailing with the “archaic revival” aspect of Jan’s historiography of 60s counterculture. McLuhan wrote much about how the modern era was reviving olde ways. This is reflected in his term, “global village,” for example, and characterization of television as tribal drum. Technology was reviving the auditory world with electronics, while the visual world, that of print media, was being somewhat squeezed aside. McL portrayed the trend as a side effect of new technologies, not — so far as I have ever seen — as an effect of deliberate social engineering.

      • If you’re a materialist, how good can the conclusions ultimately be? You’re promoting the very thing the establishment has for 300 years.

  4. I was surprised you interviewed him this time as I had heard you get into it with him in the past. I was also surprised he had a beef with Lana at radio 314.

    Personally I don’t believe humans posses enough senses to accurately use scientific method. We don’t see the whole electromagnetic spectrum for instance. Never mind any numismatist sense abilities.

    • Irvin has alienated Kevin Cole, Richard Grove, Corbett, and on and on.

      • He has made me interested in the trivium how ever, I barely remember my philosophy classes from the early 90’s. I do remember learning about the logical fallacies though, I always feel trollish when I point out fallacies to people online.

        The Jesuits where keen on waking us up (to serve the church), though I am not really sure what waking up really means these days; seems like you wake up, and then you wake up some more, and you soon wake up further.

  5. hey Jay, Im interested in knowing what your take on the New Testament is. Its origins, its attachment to Romanism, Judaism?… if any. Are you still a “believer” in the biblical sense or is there some logical conclusion (maybe just Creator) you have come to?

    • My leanings are for eastern orthodox theology. In my view, it makes the most sense at this stage, but throughout my spiritual journey I was never really convinced of any fraudulent aspects of the biblical texts. I had a good bit of biblical and textual studies classes and found the material nourishing. I intend eventually to treat these topics at more length in the future and possibly even books on the subjects down the road, once I get this first one out.

  6. @Joellaugh

    Well played. Lol.

    I too disagree with your comment though, and you’ll pardon me while I consult my fan mail from 2009 as to a boss reposte.

  7. The whole trivium thing, as it relates to Yawn is this: Gene O’Denning put if forward; Yawn immediately screwed it up–misunderstood it, miscommunicated it and generally trashed it; Kevin Cole stepped in and did (is still doing I think) a heroic research project into the multifaceted nature of the thing and produced a much more useful presentation; Yawn shit on K Cole for doing so and continued to distort the original meaning and implications of the concept to this day.

  8. Kathy Kaplan // December 10, 2015 at 5:12 am //

    Hi, Jay,

    I enjoy your blogs and find you INCREDIBLY insightful. Perhaps Jan Irvin and Joe Atwill are JEALOUS of your gray matter. In any event, what a drag to have to defend oneself against accusations that are without merit. Having someone plagiarize one’s work is another matter in itself. I hope there is some remedy (?) for you. Certainly your early posting and Atwill’s failure to provide any references that may have served to inspire his “new connections”, put you in the clear. Keep up the GREAT work, Jay! K. Kaplan


  9. Jelena Davidović // December 10, 2015 at 3:47 pm //

    ”A great tree attracts the wind”!

  10. Hi Jay

    Very surprised at your ad hominem criticism of my works. Have you read either book? I would love to be a quest on your show and discuss them with you.

    By the way, I have never claimed you were a CIA shill or that my take on Huxley was the first to point out his connections to that organization.

    Joe Atwill

  11. Hi Jay

    You wrote: “Since Jan Irvin and his website commenter buddies have decided to declare me a CIA shill”. I believe I can be seen as one of Jan’s “website commenter buddies”.

    I have not read or heard your analysis of Tempest, though I will check it out. I will certainly give you credit for anything in it that predates my article. I am not interested in claiming credit for these insights, but only that the public is aware of them.

    You seem willing to debate with Jan, so I would hope that you would see an exchange with me as no less interesting for you and your listeners.

    Joe Atwill

  12. Hi Jay

    Thanks for he clarification. Would you mind now also clarifying where my work makes “usage of Bart Ehrman” and how this makes it a “crock of shit”.

    Joe Atwill

    • I am aware you criticize ehrman. My point is the methodology and technique of the higher critical approach is consistently repackaged and respun from higher criticism into Jesus Quest and on down to Marcus Borg, Pagels, Spong and many others who propose new theses for academic candy.

  13. Jay, you remain a diamond in the rough. I don’t know how you keep keepin’ on the straight and narrow in a world dominated by so much fluff, click-bait, crazed ‘intellectuals’, and just general chaff.

  14. Thanks for the clarification. Would you mind now clarifying where I “promoted of Bart Ehrman” or “repackaged German higher criticism”.


  15. LOL if you’re into the toilet end of silent laughs tapped out on keyboards…. http://j.mp/18oBVpd

  16. Regarding your alleged role as a CIA shill, has Mr. Irvin and his acolytes provided any grammar to support their logic and rhetoric?

  17. To me this is nothing more than two inflated egos who basically agree on the most important issues (NWO, 9-11 truth, MKUltra, etc), yet desperately look for a minor issue over which to have an intellectual (but at the same time infantile) pissing contest. It’s the 21st century equivalent of “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin”, like anybody else cares. Grow up the both of you!

    • It’s different when this becomes your living and people try to undercut your livelihood and begin calling you a shill. Don’t judge until you’re in the game. Sometimes these things are wisely ignored (as you can see my site has 3 responses to attacks out of 800 posts – raw story, New York magazine and Jan). Sometimes a response is due.

      • Jay, I don’t see you as having “an inflated ego.” Not that you should care what I think — social pressure being zero since you don’t know me and all I know is what you have published. I only know that Jan seems to have issues and maybe we should just leave it at that.

  18. Hey Jay

    As a massive fan of yours and long time consumer of Jan’s material I naturally found the recent exchange between you two interesting to say the least.

    Your patience whilst moderating the debate was most notable (and commendable) especially given your previous intolerance to those with flimsy/lazy positions (via a vis Boilerroom exchange with Baguette).

    Whilst one can respect the effort Jan has dedicated to his extensive portfolio of work , he lamentably exhibits a chronic tendency to over power any discussion in his capacity as either interviewer/ee made worse by a droll monotone. If anyone wants a dose of same check out his interview with Hoaxbusters.

    Notwithstanding, thanks for all your work and associated collaborations with other great conduits such as Kendall, Adams, Kelly, etc.

    Particularly, I hang out for your epic intellectual chats with Chris Kendall which IMO elucidate challenging content in understandable form that have re-opened my mind to entertain the non empiric wonders of the world as credible phenomena. I wish my late mother (who relied upon and enjoyed her spirituality) was alive to witness me freed of an imposed dialectic that put us unnecessarily at odds for many decades.

  19. Jay,
    Essentially, I would say that the 5 senses,
    Trivium are not the only parameters of viewing
    reality. I believe this is what you were getting at.
    This is Heidegger, Meister Eckhart.
    Would you agree with this?

    • Classical approaches of the liberal arts have approached the question that way. You can see instances of that in Renaissance thought or maybe in someone like Raymond Lull. It’s very possible….

  20. The five senses are only adequate for analyzing the nature (creation) but they cannot provide a full explanation of its origins or true nature (the Creator). To believe otherwise is to believe in Scientism which really is nothing more than a competing religion which from my admittedly limited knowledge of philosophy is an outgrowth of Gnosticism – Man’s apotheosis can be achieved through knowledge. Hence the cult of Reason, the French Revolution and the great bloodletting we commonly refer to as the 20th century. The denial of metaphysics is itself a metaphysical statement. In short the scientific approach can tell us how but it cannot tell us why. That question belongs in the realm of the philosophy. But then again the disciplines of science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive. Am I wrong here?

    PS Why is it that those who claim to be most rational are usually the most irrational when challenged?

  21. Jay, kudos for your insightful remarks on this ‘gnosticmedia’ biz, ugly stuff. You join a distinguished company with your close encounter of the Irvin kind, btw. Ask guys like Carl Ruck, John Hoopes and many others whom Irvin has despicably stabbed in the back. After receiving his solicitations, trying to lend their expertise to help him (a guy without even a bachelor’s degree) – give his ‘friendly’ solicitations benefit of the doubt, take him at face value – only to be backstabbed, used as asswipe raw material for Irvin’s intensifying hysteria and pathological aggression.

    I wonder how much do you know about the ‘Secret History’ of Gnosticmedia? I refer to its origins as a fawning imitation or outright ripoff – of Irvin’s late, former best friend Alias “James Arthur” who cashed in with his book MUSHROOMS AND MANKIND – the blueprint of Irvin’s ASTROTHEOLOGY AND SHAMANISM.

    Real name, James A. Dugovic. Real profile a notorious pedophile with a felony rap sheet. On getting out of penitentiary, he didn’t have the greatest job prospects. So he ‘reinvented’ himself – getting rid of his last name (the better to cover tracks to his felony record) – and pretended to be a ‘researcher’ (self-accredited like Irvin). On one hand, a pursuit of fame and fortune – but also as a cover for his real interest, allowing him to resume stalking and sexually abusing children.

    Irvin’s spiral descent into hysterical aggression and accusation theater – suggests a nightmare scenario, that his ‘secret history’ could ever come out in public. A few links in case its of interest.

    First, Dugovic’s mug shot from his second arrest, 2004 (too bad we couldn’t see the look on his ‘little buddy’ Jan’s face): http://www.bustedmugshots.com/california/madera/james-arthur-dugovic/98283011

    That’s when things really unraveled, as the record reflects: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4062597/fpart/all/vc/1

    Meanwhile Dugovic had buddied with starry-eyed Irvin, and marketed himself as “James Arthur” on the ‘entheo’ tent circuit – with Irvin his proud budding protege. The sick fact that the (self-declared) “world’s foremost ethnomycologist” was not only a fake but a convicted pedophile named Dugovic – who ditched his last name to cover a trail to who he really was (lest anyone find out) came out only from his arrest, after having created his ‘researcher’ persona (same way his pupil Yawn crafted his).

    Considering how high Dugovic had risen in his little celebratory scene, and how far he now was falling – he opted out: killed himself. That’s when Irvin, as “Arthur’s” devoted friend (with privileged access to “Arthur” house, computer) got there before police (as Irvin boast posted at the time, posted on internet). And he took files of unknown content off ‘Arthur’s’ computer, “in the nick of time.”

    Some think it was child porn Irvin got, others think it was Arthurian ‘research’ … which ended up, uh … re-authored by Irvin … as his own. The better to become his HOLY MUSHROOM book – with Dugovic not around anymore to tell on his ‘best friend’ … https://www.facebook.com/daniel.pinchbeck/posts/10151559896411262 Either way …

    Seems Irvin thought it quite a triumph at the time – even gloated about it. Until he had ‘2nd thoughts’ apparently, and – deleted his posts from that shroomery meltdown (linked above). But as reflects – not before “Hemperor” Jack Herer’s widow Jeannie showed up – to bust Irvin’s act. Her husband, much to her dismay – had gotten drawn in by Team Arthur / Irvin. And she was none too impressed from the gitgo, by this ‘dynamic duo’ with obvious exploitive designs on her man.

    And as reflects in that forum, Jeannie called Yawn out on his story-time bs – she copied some in his remarks into her posts, to answer – before Irvin was able to ‘back pedal’ by deleting them.

    In so doing, Jeannie put the lie to Irvin’s ‘damage control’ 911 attempt, so desperate to cover up the “Arthur” scandal (in which he centrally figured). What’s more, in process of copying/pasting – she preserved some of Yawn’s lies, his naked deceit verbatim – against his incompetent ‘unposting’ attempt, to redact the record. In effect Jeannie not only exposed Yawn’s “true colors” – she foiled his desperate back-peddling maneuver to try re-concealing them – by preserving his monumental lies, in all their manipulative intent, for posterity – and let the record reflect. There are some articles on internet about the demise of the ‘Hemperor’s’ empire and cache, in which Irvin’s name figures prominently (titles like “Jack, Jack, Who’s Got Your Back”).

    These are just glimmers of what’s gone on, and what makes Irvin sing. Under UV ‘black light’ of his ‘untold history’ – his entire act lights up: His gullibility-baiting Secret Histories always trying to direct attention toward skeletons in – other peoples’ closets (avoiding his own) – fluoresces like true colors that try to hide, but come glaring (not shining) thru. I hope this sheds light for you, if you weren’t previously aware of this atrocious info. But I think it explains well the “how and why” of Irvin’s defamatory scandalizing – the axis of his ‘bombshell’ story cycles, 24/7. All evil conspiracies of others, all the time – scandalous coverups, ‘smoking guns’ and finger pointing etc. Its direction of attention always 180 degrees away from himself – as if – pay no attention to that man behind that gnostic curtain. It all ‘adds up’ as they say on DRAGNET – considering what could happen to Irvin and his reputation, if the facts of his “James Arthur University” pedogree surfaced.

    This is a guy who desperately needs to keep directing appetites for scandal away from himself – by orchestrating cues toward others in a 360 circle surrounding him – lest that sort of tabolid interest wonder, even ask inconvenient questions about – the Janster. The skeleton in Irvin’s closet is no doubt a source of chronic fear and constant worry to him – for what it could spell (his fate?) – if question ever turned toward – him – rather than who he’s trying to divert attention to (the better to keep himself out of that light).

    With his very fate staked on such fragile foundation – Irvin has good ground for a lot to worry about. He can only live in fear of what may lie ahead for him and his lies. All things considered, impression – no wonder Irvin’s paranoiac psychodrama is off the scale.

    By comparison to Nixon’s downfall, Yawn’s nightmare scenario might aptly be designated: “Arthurgate.” Pardon the info – mainly to say kudos for your interesting account of such a dismal encounter, as you’ve had – not uniquely more typically.

  22. If I had a dollar for every time Jan Irvin attacked me personally for disagreeing with him, I’d not be bothering to comment here because I would be having sex with a dozen supermodels on a four-foot high mound of cocaine on my own private desert island, and the Rothschilds would be my hand-servants.

    Jay I appreciate that you kept your comments to the issues and did not engage back in ad hominem against Mr. Irvin. I appreciate Jan’s investigation into MKULTRA and CHAOS, but beyond that, he’s frankly, an impossible megalomaniac with a deep-embedded insecurity which is at the root of his attacks and hyper-defensiveness. He aint nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and his people skills are abysmal.

    CAVEAT LECTOR: Im no angel myself, so I acknowledge the mirroring going on. And it appears I also provided the ad hominem you omitted. >;0)

    As far as Joe Atwill goes, I read Caesar’s Messiah, and although there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the Roman Empire’s manipulation and transmogrification of Paganism into Christianity as the official state religion, the Flavian creation myth strains credibility and is flimsy at best. One man’s interpretation of a single book of the bible, and a singular obscure history text, is hardly conclusive evidence of anything. But there is some meat on those bones, they just point to other more interesting historical subtexts.

    Jay keep up the good work. You’re that rare voice we all need these days.

    Charles Shaw

  23. As the webmaster at postflaviana.org, I’d like to explain the publishing history of Joe’s article on “The Tempest”, and the dead link mentioned above. The article was originally posted to the web page on Oct. 20, 2014 under the title “Shakespeare’s Tempest: A Tale of Revenge and Forgiveness”. Joe subsequently re-wrote the article with the new title “Shakespeare’s Apocalyptic Brave New World” which was posted Sept. 22, 2015, and at that point in time the earlier link went dead because of the title change. My bad. But, the original article is still available on the website (linked at the end of the new article) so that anyone who is interested in tracing the intellectual evolution, can do so.

    The new article is at this link: http://postflaviana.org/tempest-brave-new-world/

    Regarding Jay’s comment: “If Atwill has written on these matters previously I’d be glad to know and will apologize and retract my error.” The publication date of Joe’s book “Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah” was April 2014, but he appeared in a video interview at rodephemet.org in 2008 in which he outlined his basic views. Rodephemet seems to be defunct, but the interview has been reposted to you-tube:

    Finally, I would like to respond to Charles Shaw’s claim that he has read Caesar’s Messiah. It is true that the book is most well-known for its demonstration of extensive parallels between Luke and Josephus’ War of the Jews. However, it also contains extensive references to all four canonical gospels, Daniel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Suetonius, and Juvenal, among many others. So the characterization that it is based on “a single book of the bible, and a singular obscure history text” proves only that Shaw has no idea what he is talking about.

    • The dispute is over the association with Brave New World, not his analysis of Shakespeare, as I’ve said all along. I don’t see anything about that.

      • Hi Jay,

        Thanks for your reply. I do want to give credit as appropriate, but I also feel it’s important to respond to allegations of plagiarism.

        The Huxley book “Brave New World” is not only named after the Shakespeare quote, but it contains at least 47 other Shakespeare quotes, as identified by Wiki’s article “List of quotes from Shakespeare in Brave New World”. Without doing the academic research, I’m pretty sure that Huxley’s extensive reliance on Shakespeare (including the title) has been well known since the book came out in 1932.

        Also, the idea that “The Tempest” is based on themes of occult magic practices, as well as aspirations for America as the “New World” (as you explained on your podcast) has been known for a long time, as we discussed in our Oct. 20 post.

        As Joe said, if there’s anything specific in your analysis that predates his work and which is original to you, we’d like to know so that we can give you specific credit. From my position as an editor, it looks to me like you were simultaneously and independently working on the same topic, as far as the relationship between Huxley and Shakespeare is concerned. For whatever it’s worth, I received the rough draft of Joe’s revisions to the “Tempest” article on Aug. 31, 2015.

        What is new (as far as I know) in Joe’s work, is the idea that “Shakespeare” is Jewish revenge literature, and that the dystopia portrayed in “The Tempest” is a reenactment of the triumph of the Jews over the Gentiles as depicted in Isaiah 29-34. I’m curious what you would think of that? I would add that I think the British elite see themselves as heirs of the Biblical blessings conferred by Isaiah, in accordance with the tenets of “British Israel.”

      • Yes, I have spoken of British Israelitism before.

  24. Perhaps you haven’t read my article above. Obviously Brave New World is a citation from the Tempest, that is not in question and anyone who takes a college lit class on Shakespeare or Renaissance lit knows the themes of alchemy are profuse. I am referring to Atwill’s article, dated after my talk, and Atwill’s interview with Irvin, also dated far after.

    “What is new (as far as I know) in Joe’s work, is the idea that “Shakespeare” is Jewish revenge literature, and that the dystopia portrayed in “The Tempest” is a reenactment of the triumph of the Jews over the Gentiles as depicted in Isaiah 29-34. I’m curious what you would think of that? I would add that I think the British elite see themselves as heirs of the Biblical blessings conferred by Isaiah, in accordance with the tenets of “British Israel.”

    This is precisely what I am referring to, though I don’t care to debate the merits of his theories of either Shakespeare (which is full of hermetic and cabalistic imagery like the Faerie Queen) or his New Testament ideas, which I completely disagree with.

    • Jay,

      In your article above, you complained about this statement from Joe: “Did Shakespeare have such an occulted meaning for the expression ‘Brave New World’, and how should we now understand the phrase?” But, in the same paragraph, Joe explained what he meant by his claim of a newly discovered occulted meaning. To be specific, Joe wrote:

      “In Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah (hereafter, SSM), I showed that some Shakespeare plays have a hidden symbolic level which inverts the Flavian comic system of the Gospels and Josephus.”

      This is the “occulted meaning” he is talking about, rather than any broader hermetical or alchemical theme.

      Since you don’t agree with Joe’s analysis of the New Testament, I don’t see how you could possibly claim to agree with his Shakespearean analysis, or how it relates to Huxley, much less that he took the entire thesis from your Sept. 7 podcast.

      Your charge of plagiarism seems to boil down to that you talked about Huxley and Shakespeare on the 7th, and Joe subsequently published on the same topic on the 22nd. So what? As you say above, the linkage has been noted in college lit classes for years.

      • My talk on Brave New World discusses Ariel, its biblical meaning, Prospero, The Tempest, Bacon, the New Atlantis, and America as the magical Brave New World and MK ULTRA – all of which then appears in his interview with Irvin. Where was Atwill’s source for all of this?

  25. Jay: Ariel, its biblical meaning, Prospero, The Tempest, and America as one of Shakespeare’s inspirations for The Tempest, were all discussed in the Oct. 20, 2014 version of the article, which is still on the site here:


    Bacon and the New Atlantis weren’t mentioned, and I suppose it’s possible Atwill & Irvin first heard this aspect from you. However, I was a little bit puzzled by your remarks about Bacon on your podcast, since “New Atlantis” was published in 1627 while “Tempest” was first performed in 1611. So it doesn’t seem possible that Shakespeare was inspired by Bacon’s novel. Perhaps you meant to say that the linkage went the other way, from Shakespeare to Bacon?

  26. I say in the talk “Shakespeare may have known about Magellan,” and I say it is “linked to the New Atlantis,” not that it was based on it. There is no discrepancy.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: